Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:24):
On the record. Is there anything that we need to discuss on behalf of the state?
Speaker 2 (02:29):
No, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:30):
On behalf of the defense?
Speaker 1 (02:32):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:32):
All right. Let's bring our jury in.
Mr. Bailiff (02:34):
Bring in the jury.
(02:35)
The jury is seated.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (03:26):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has reentered the courtroom. Allow you a minute to get those badges on. State, you may call your next witness.
Attorney Smircic (03:44):
State calls Mehnaz Chowdhury.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (03:46):
All right, ma'am, if you can make your way around here to the witness stand, please. Ma'am, do you wish to swear on the Bible or not swear on the Bible?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (04:06):
Not swear.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:06):
Okay. All right. You can raise your right hand.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Do you affirm that the testimony you give in court today will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and this is your solemn affirmation?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (04:19):
Yes, I do.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Thank you. You may be seated.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (04:25):
Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:27):
Ma'am, as you give your testimony here today, there are some important things to remember. Remember to speak loudly and clearly into that microphone. The closer that you get to it, the better that it's going to pick you up. Also remember that all of your answers need to be out loud. Can't have any head shakes or nods or mm-hmms. Everything has to be a yes or a no. And finally, please wait for the attorney to be done asking their question before you give a response. Can you do that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (04:51):
Yes, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:52):
All right, thank you. State, you may proceed.
Attorney Smircic (04:55):
Thank you, Judge. Can you state your name and spell it for Madam Court Reporter?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (04:58):
Yes. Hi, my name is Mehnaz Chowdhury, M-E-H-N-A-Z C-H-O-W-D-H-U-R-Y.
Attorney Smircic (05:08):
And Ms. Chowdhury, where do you work?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (05:10):
I work at the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory. I currently work in the latent evidence section.
Attorney Smircic (05:15):
And what is your position there?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (05:21):
I am a level two forensic scientist under the latent evidence section.
Attorney Smircic (05:32):
What was your role at the crime lab back in 2017 and 2018?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (05:40):
So I started working at the North Carolina State Crime Lab in February of 2013, and I began my career in the forensic biology section. I worked there for seven and a half years, then transferred over to the latent evidence section.
Attorney Smircic (05:58):
What are your duties and responsibilities at the state crime lab?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (06:00):
When I was working in the forensic biology section, I tested evidence that was submitted by law enforcement agencies for the presence or indications of blood and semen. I then would prepare those samples for DNA analysis, either by taking a swabbing or a cutting. Those samples were either worked by me for DNA analysis or by another qualified analyst. I also wrote my reports. I summarized my findings and conclusions in laboratory reports. When doing DNA analysis, I would enter DNA profiles into CODIS, which is the combined DNA index system, and I would also testify in court when called upon. And I also performed technical and administrative reviews on my colleagues' body fluid identification cases.
Attorney Smircic (07:03):
So those would've been your responsibilities back around 2017, 2018?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (07:07):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (07:09):
Can you tell us about your educational background?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (07:11):
I have a bachelor's of science degree in biology and mathematics from Meredith College. I have a master of microbiology degree and a graduate certificate in molecular biotechnology from North Carolina State University.
Attorney Smircic (07:28):
Can you tell us about your forensic experience?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (07:32):
I have worked in the forensic biology section from February 2013 through August of 2020. There, I tested items of evidence submitted by law enforcement agencies for blood and semen. I would then prepare those samples by either taking a swabbing or a cutting for DNA analysis. Those samples were either worked by me or another DNA analyst. I then entered DNA profiles into CODIS. I would compose reports and have the report summarize my analysis and conclusions. I also performed technical and administrative reviews on body fluid identification cases.
Attorney Smircic (08:18):
Were you certified?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (08:20):
Yes. I am certified under the American Board of Criminalistics in the field of molecular biology as a diplomate, and I am also a certified latent print examiner under the International Association for Identification.
Attorney Smircic (08:35):
Have you ever testified in court as an expert witness?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (08:38):
Yes, I have.
Attorney Smircic (08:39):
Approximately how many times?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (08:40):
A total of 15 times.
Attorney Smircic (08:43):
May I approach?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (08:44):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (08:55):
Ms. Choudhury, I'm showing you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 96. Do you recognize that document?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (09:00):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (09:01):
What is it?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (09:02):
This is a copy of my CV.
Attorney Smircic (09:05):
And is this your updated CV?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (09:08):
It is.
Attorney Smircic (09:09):
Does it list all your education, qualifications, professional experience?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (09:13):
Yes, it does.
Attorney Smircic (09:15):
And does it accurately reflect your background?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (09:19):
Yes, it does.
Attorney Smircic (09:20):
Judge, the state would move to enter State's 96 into evidence.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (09:23):
Any objection? Exhibit 96 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Smircic (09:33):
Judge, at this time, I would tender Ms. Chowdhury as an expert in forensic biology.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
No objection.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (09:40):
The witness will be qualified as an expert in the field of forensic biology.
Attorney Smircic (09:50):
Ms. Chowdhury, when evidence is submitted to the state crime lab, what happens to it when the lab receives it?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (09:56):
So evidence is submitted to our evidence control section by law enforcement agencies. Once it is submitted, a unique laboratory case number is generated through our laboratory information management system called Forensic Advantage. Any items of evidence associated with that case is assigned to that case number, and whenever it is transferred, it begins our chain of custody. The transfer is documented and done through the laboratory information management system called Forensic Advantage. This is done by laboratory personnel entering a unique password that will place the date, time, and the location of where the transfer occurs.
Attorney Smircic (10:47):
So you document a chain of custody within the laboratory?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (10:50):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (10:52):
Did you receive evidence in this case from law enforcement?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (10:59):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (11:03):
What did you do upon first receiving the evidence?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (11:06):
So once I receive the evidence, evidence is placed in a vault prior to me receiving it. It's a secured vault, and then when I transfer it to myself, I enter my unique password that will date stamp the transfer into the chain of custody. And then on the physical evidence, as in the packaging of the evidence, I'll write the date that I received the evidence along with my initials, and then I will begin my examinations.
Attorney Smircic (11:40):
Ms. Chowdhury, did you actually produce two lab reports in this case?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (11:44):
I did.
Attorney Smircic (11:46):
I want to start with your first lab report and the work you did concerning that report. What items of evidence did you test?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (11:59):
So in the first case report, I examined a sexual assault kit that was labeled item number 3 and all the contents within the kit.
Attorney Smircic (12:19):
May I approach?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (12:19):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (12:52):
Ms. Chowdhury, I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 17, which is lab item 3-2. Did you... Or what is that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (13:06):
So State's Exhibit Number 17 is laboratory item number 3-2. It is the vaginal swabs.
Attorney Smircic (13:19):
And that's one of the items-
Mehnaz Chowdhury (13:20):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (13:20):
Excuse me.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (13:21):
Yes, it is one of the items that was in the sexual assault kit.
Attorney Smircic (13:25):
And one of the items you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (13:26):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (13:30):
I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as State's Exhibit 15. What lab item is that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (13:39):
State's Exhibit 15 is item number 3-3.
Attorney Smircic (13:43):
And what is it?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (13:44):
And it's a rectal swabs and smear.
Attorney Smircic (13:46):
Again, one of the items you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (13:48):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (13:51):
I'm showing you what's already been admitted as State's Exhibit 14. What lab item number is that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (13:57):
State's Exhibit 14 is item 3- 4, and it is the clitoral hood swabs.
Attorney Smircic (14:05):
Again, another item you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (14:07):
Yes, I did.
Attorney Smircic (14:10):
I'm now showing you what's been admitted as State's Exhibit 16. What lab item is that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (14:17):
State's Exhibit 16 is item 3-5 and it is the external perineal swabs.
Attorney Smircic (14:24):
Again, another item you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (14:26):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (14:27):
And lastly, I'm showing you what's been admitted as State's 13C. What lab item is that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (14:33):
State's Exhibit 13C is item 3-6, and it is the ear swabs.
Attorney Smircic (14:42):
Okay. And how do you know these are... The items I just showed you are indeed the items you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (14:52):
I know what they are because they're labeled as such on the packaging.
Attorney Smircic (14:57):
Do you also initial it when you test it?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (15:00):
Yes. I can identify that these items are items that I received because they have the case number, the barcode, and they have my initials and date.
Attorney Smircic (15:12):
Thank you.
(15:21)
Ms. Chowdhury, the items we just talked about, what were you testing them for?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (15:25):
I was testing them for the presence of semen.
Attorney Smircic (15:30):
How do you test... Well, let me start here. Is testing for semen typically what's first done in a sexual assault kit?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (15:36):
Typically, yes.
Attorney Smircic (15:38):
And why is that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (15:40):
Because of the nature of the crime.
Attorney Smircic (15:45):
How do you test for semen?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (15:47):
So in a sexual assault kit, mostly the items of evidence are swabs, and so I would take a small cutting of that swab and place it into a small tube, and then I add a reagent called acid phosphatase. This acid phosphatase test is a screening test to help determine if there are any indications of semen. It is not a confirmatory test. It's a presumptive test. It just tells me that there are indications or a possibility that there may be semen in that sample.
(16:25)
Sexual assault kits also come with what's called a smear. So this is collected by a sexual assault nurse examiner who will take the swabbing collected from the individual and then will swipe it on top of a glass slide. Those glass slides, I will take and add staining reagents in order to help visualize any possible sperm cells. Sperm cells are found in semen, which is the ejaculatory fluid from a male's reproductive organ. And then under a microscope, I will see if I see any sperm cells and that will confirm that the sample has semen.
Attorney Smircic (17:23):
I want to talk about lab item 3-2, 3-3, and 3-5, which is the vaginal swab and smear, the rectal swab and smear and the external perineal swabs. What were the results of your testing for those three items?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (17:41):
Microscope examination of the vaginal, rectal, and external perineal smears, items 3-2, 3-3, 3-5 failed to reveal the presence of spermatozoa, which is also another word for sperm cells. Examination of samples taken from the vaginal, rectal, and external perineal swabs, items 3-2, 3-3, and 3-5 using the acid phosphatase test failed to indicate the presence of semen.
Attorney Smircic (18:16):
So if either of these tests had indicated the presence of sperm cells or semen, would further testing have been done?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (18:25):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (18:30):
And Ms. Chowdhury, what were the results and testing done on lab items 3-4 and 3-6, which is the clitoral hood swabs and the ear swabs?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (18:42):
Examination of samples taken from the clitoral hood and ear swabs, items 3-4 and 3-6 using the acid phosphatase test failed to indicate the presence of semen. No confirmatory semen testing was performed.
Attorney Smircic (18:58):
Ms. Chowdhury, did you create a lab report for this case-
Mehnaz Chowdhury (19:03):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (19:03):
... summarizing your findings?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (19:05):
Yes, I did.
Attorney Smircic (19:18):
May I approach?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (19:18):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (19:28):
Ms. Chowdhury, I'm showing you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 97, which is a two-page document. Do you recognize that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (19:39):
Yes, I recognize State's Exhibit 97.
Attorney Smircic (19:42):
Is that your lab report in this, what you just testified to?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (19:46):
Yes, it is.
Attorney Smircic (19:47):
Does it have any changes, alterations, deletions, modifications?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (19:58):
No, there is not.
Attorney Smircic (19:59):
And your signature is actually on this report?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (20:01):
Yes, my signature's on the report.
Attorney Smircic (20:04):
Judge, I would move to admit State's 97 into evidence.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (20:07):
Any objection?
Speaker 1 (20:08):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (20:08):
State's Exhibit 97 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Smircic (20:13):
And may I publish?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (20:17):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (20:17):
Ms. Chowdhury, is this the top of the first page of your lab report?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (20:21):
Yes, it is.
Attorney Smircic (20:22):
And it identifies the lab number as well as you as the analyst and when you produced this report?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (20:29):
Yes, it does.
Attorney Smircic (20:30):
And it was December 2017 when you produced this lab report?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (20:35):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (20:37):
And at the bottom here, it summarizes your findings at the bottom of the first page as well as the second page, top of the second page?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (20:43):
Yes, it does.
Attorney Smircic (20:45):
And Ms. Chowdhury, when the state crime lab tests various items of evidence over the course of a case, they may produce several lab reports, is that right?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (20:55):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (20:56):
By different analysts or maybe the same analyst?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (20:58):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (21:00):
Were there several, what y'all call case records in this case or lab reports?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (21:04):
Yes, there are several case records. Each case record is assigned to one analyst.
Attorney Smircic (21:09):
So for this case, what case record is this?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (21:13):
This is case record number two.
Attorney Smircic (21:17):
Did case record one produce any kind of report or was that just for lab tracking?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (21:23):
I actually... I need to look into that. I don't really recall. I actually don't know.
Attorney Smircic (21:39):
That's okay.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (21:40):
I apologize. Yeah, I only have case records two and four with me.
Attorney Smircic (21:46):
Okay. Ms. Chowdhury, you also produced a second lab report you've mentioned that was marked as case record four, is that right?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (22:01):
That's correct.
Attorney Smircic (22:27):
Ms. Chowdhury, I'm showing you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 98. Do you recognize that disc?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (22:34):
Yes, I do recognize it.
Attorney Smircic (22:36):
What is contained on this disc?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (22:38):
State's Exhibit 98 has copies of my case records two and four.
Attorney Smircic (22:45):
And you reviewed this prior to testifying here today?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (22:47):
Yes, I have.
Attorney Smircic (22:49):
Are both the reports generated in here, not just your two-page report, but all of your other lab notes as well?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (22:55):
Yes, it contains all my lab notes.
Attorney Smircic (22:58):
And anything been altered, modified, or changed from when you produced these case records two and four?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (23:05):
No.
Attorney Smircic (23:07):
Judge, the state would move to enter State's 98 into evidence.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (23:10):
No objection?
Speaker 1 (23:12):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (23:12):
State's Exhibit 98 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Smircic (23:20):
All right, Ms. Chowdhury, let's talk about the second lab report you did, which was case record four. What items of evidence did you test in this case or in this report?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (23:37):
I tested item 8, which is a sealed paper bag containing one pair of blue child pants. Item 9, sealed paper bag containing one pair of blue men's boxer shorts. Item 10, sealed manila envelope containing a set of red earbuds. Item 16 is the sealed paper bag containing one gray and white sheet. Item 17, sealed paper bag containing one gray and white sheet. Item 18... Oh no, sorry, not item 18. Item 20, the sealed paper bag containing one tan pillowcase.
Attorney Smircic (24:36):
May I approach?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (24:36):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (24:45):
Ms. Chowdhury, I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 38. What lab item of evidence is that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (24:54):
State's Exhibit 38 is item 8.
Attorney Smircic (24:58):
And that is one of the items you tested in the second report?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (25:01):
Yes, it is.
Attorney Smircic (25:04):
And once again, you're identifying all these by the crime lab tag as well as your initials?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (25:10):
Yes. I recognize this item because it has the laboratory case number, item number, the barcode label, and it has my initials and date.
Attorney Smircic (25:22):
Okay. I'm going to now show you what's been marked as State's 52, already admitted. Do you recognize that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (25:30):
Yes. I recognize State's Exhibit 52 as item 15. I see that it has my date and initials as well.
Attorney Smircic (25:41):
And again, one of the items you tested in the second report?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (25:44):
Yes. Item 15.
Attorney Smircic (25:47):
I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as... I'll have you open this one.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (25:59):
Oh, sure.
Attorney Smircic (25:59):
This has already been admitted as State's 40. This particular item was repackaged since the lab, so I'm going to open it for you. Looking in the State's Exhibit 40, do you recognize that item?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (26:43):
State's Exhibit 40 is item 9, and yes, I recognize it because I see my date and initials and the case number.
Attorney Smircic (26:51):
Again, one of the items you tested in the second report?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (26:54):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (26:57):
I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as State's 43, which has also been repackaged. I'm going to pull out the envelope that that item was contained in. Do you recognize that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (27:14):
Yes. State's exhibit... Which number was it?
Attorney Smircic (27:16):
State's Exhibit 43.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (27:18):
State's Exhibit 43 is item 10, and I see my date and initials.
Attorney Smircic (27:23):
Again, this is what you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (27:24):
Yes, I did test that.
Attorney Smircic (27:24):
I'm going to next show you what's already been admitted as State's 40. Do you recognize that item?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (27:37):
State's... Yes, I do recognize it with... I see my date and initials. State's Exhibit 40 is item 9.
Attorney Smircic (27:45):
Again, one of the items you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (27:47):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (27:47):
And I'm going to show you what's been marked as an admitted already as State's 56. Do you recognize that item?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (28:09):
Yes, I do. State's Exhibit 56 is item 17, and it contains my date and initials.
Attorney Smircic (28:16):
Again, one of the items you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (28:17):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (28:18):
And I'm going to show you what already been admitted as State's 63. Do you recognize that item?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (28:28):
Yes. State's Exhibit 63 is item 20 and has my date and initials, and it is an item I tested.
Attorney Smircic (28:37):
Okay. I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as State's 55, which has been re-bagged. I'm going to open it up for you. It appears the item's actually in this bag. Do you recognize that as one of the items you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (29:23):
Yes. State's Exhibit 55 is item 20. Wait, that's the...
Attorney Smircic (29:37):
I'll show you the original bag you had labeled.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (29:39):
Oh, thank you. Yes. State's Exhibit... Is it 55?
Attorney Smircic (29:48):
55.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (29:48):
55 is item 16. It has my date and initials, and I did test this.
Attorney Smircic (29:53):
Again, one of the items you tested in your second report?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (29:57):
Yes, I did.
Attorney Smircic (30:13):
Ms. Chowdhury, what were you testing these items for?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (30:16):
I was testing these items for blood and semen.
Attorney Smircic (30:24):
You've already explained to the jury how you test for semen, but how do you test for blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (30:30):
So I first do a visual examination for any reddish brown stains that would resemble blood. If I have an item of evidence that's very dark-colored, I will treat that a little differently. But for the items where I can see a reddish brown stain, I will either, I'll take a rubbing of the area that is reddish brown and then apply three reagents that makes up what's called a Kastle-Meyer test. This is a presumptive blood test. It does not confirm blood. It just tells me that there are possible indications of blood on the sample.
(31:14)
It is a color changing test. So once I apply the reagents, if it turns hot pink, then it indicates that it's positive. If no color change occurs, then it's recorded as negative. For items of evidence that are very dark and colored, I will do what's called a general rubbing. So I will take a piece of filter paper and rub the entire item of evidence. Usually I do it in quadrants and then I'll apply that same test, those three reagents onto it and see if there's any color change.
Attorney Smircic (31:48):
And if you get a positive test on the presumptive Kastle-Meyer test, do you send it for confirmatory blood testing or is something else done?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (31:59):
No. For blood testing, there's no confirmatory test done unless it's specifically asked for.
Attorney Smircic (32:06):
Why is that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (32:08):
First, to preserve as much sample for DNA analysis if there is indications of possible blood. The other time is if it's situations where there could be a cross-contamination of blood from another species, like an animal. So if there was a case where it was a hit-and-run case, someone claimed that there was a possibility that the car ran over an animal, that blood, I won't be able to distinguish if it's human or blood just with the Kastle-Meyer presumptive test. I'd have to do a confirmatory test.
Attorney Smircic (32:41):
So typically if there is a positive on the Kastle-Meyer test, it's sent for DNA testing versus confirmatory blood testing. Is that right?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (32:55):
That's correct.
Attorney Smircic (33:02):
Let's first talk about lab items 8 and 15, which is the blue child's pants and the pink child's blanket. What were the results for the semen and blood test for that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (33:20):
So for items 8 and 15, examination of samples taken from the blue child's pant, item 8, and the pink child's blanket, item 15, using the acid phosphatase test failed to indicate the presence of semen. No confirmatory semen testing was performed.
Attorney Smircic (33:40):
Judge, at this time I'd like to publish State's 98, portions of it.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (33:45):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (34:47):
At this time, Judge, I'm publishing page 114 of this lab packet. Ms. Chowdhury, are these the blue child's pants that you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (35:02):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (35:03):
Can you...
Attorney Smircic (35:00):
... tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (35:02):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (35:04):
Can you explain to the jury what these markings are that you've made on this photograph?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (35:12):
Yes. So earlier I described how to test for semen on a sexual assault kit. When testing for semen on clothing, there's an additional step. The first step is using an alternate light source. When an alternate light source is shined on an item of evidence that may have semen on it or any body fluids like saliva or urine, they will fluoresce. So semen also fluoresces with this light. So I first initially examined with an alternate light source. Hang on. I just [inaudible 00:35:49] And the areas that are marked are areas that I saw fluorescence. And it is from those areas that I conducted the acid phosphatase test.
Attorney Smircic (36:05):
So in this photograph, what numbered areas did you test with the acid phosphatase test?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (36:13):
I did one through four, six and seven.
Attorney Smircic (36:20):
And it was negative?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (36:22):
Yes, it was negative.
Attorney Smircic (36:24):
Did you do a Kastle-Meyer test on these pants?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (36:28):
No, I did not.
Attorney Smircic (36:29):
Why not?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (36:30):
Because I did not see any reddish brown stains.
Attorney Smircic (36:40):
I'm going to move on to the pink child's blanket. This time, Judge, I'm publishing page 87 of her lab packet report. Ms. Chowdhury, what is this a photograph of?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (36:56):
I know is... Oh. This is a blanket labeled as... One second. I'm looking for. This is item 15, the one pink child's blanket.
Attorney Smircic (37:26):
And does this child's blanket appear to be, I believe it's pink on the back or somewhere?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (37:31):
Yes. I believe it may have been pink on the back or somewhere. Or I don't recall, but yes, that is item 15.
Attorney Smircic (37:40):
And on these photographs you took as well as the ones on the next page, page 88 of your report, did you also circle areas of interest?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (37:51):
Yes, I did.
Attorney Smircic (37:57):
And again, you were trying to... You fluoresce, did you fluoresce this item as well?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (38:04):
Yes, I did use an alternate light source.
Attorney Smircic (38:08):
And that's how you identified the items or the areas to test?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (38:12):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (38:14):
And again, the phosphatase test was negative?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (38:17):
Yes, it was.
Attorney Smircic (38:19):
Did you do the Kastle-Meyer test for blood on this?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (38:24):
No, I did not.
Attorney Smircic (38:24):
Why not?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (38:27):
There weren't any indications of reddish brown stains in my visual examination.
Attorney Smircic (38:37):
I want to talk about item nine, the men's boxer shorts. What did you do with that item?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (38:52):
Item nine, I performed presumptive blood testing.
Attorney Smircic (39:02):
And what were the results of that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (39:05):
They were positive. There were indications of blood.
Attorney Smircic (39:14):
Given that result, what did you do?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (39:19):
So I took three cuttings from item nine and labeled them 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3.
Attorney Smircic (39:33):
And where were those cuttings being sent off to?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (39:35):
Those were sent for DNA analysis.
Attorney Smircic (39:37):
Okay. And Judge, if I may republish, let's see what, a portion of State's 98.
Judge (40:03):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (40:14):
Ms. Chowdhury, I'm looking at page 115 of your lab packet. Is that item nine, the boxer shorts?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (40:21):
Yes, that is item nine.
Attorney Smircic (40:23):
And where are the areas in this page that indicated the presence of blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (40:37):
So on this page, what is labeled... I took a cutting as taken as item 9-3, that was an area that indicated was positive for indications of blood.
Attorney Smircic (40:54):
So is that what you marked as area four?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (40:56):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (40:57):
And that is area four is right here?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (41:00):
That's correct.
Attorney Smircic (41:10):
May I approach?
Judge (41:11):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (41:23):
Ms. Chowdhury, I'm showing you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 99. What is contained in that envelope?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (41:30):
State's Exhibit 99 has a cutting from the boxer shorts from area four.
Attorney Smircic (41:35):
Okay. And is that item 9-3?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (41:38):
Yes. And it's labeled as item 9-3.
Attorney Smircic (41:40):
So that's the cutting you took from area four on these boxers?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (41:43):
That's correct.
Attorney Smircic (41:46):
Does it appear to be a substantially similar condition as when you sealed it and it was properly marked and labeled?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (41:51):
Yes, it is.
Attorney Smircic (41:53):
Judge, the state would move to enter State's 99 into evidence.
Judge (41:56):
Any objection?
Lawyer 2 (41:57):
No, sir.
Judge (41:58):
State's Exhibit 99 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Smircic (42:05):
Ms. Chowdhury, I want to go to the next page of your report, which is page 116. Again, is this item nine the boxer shorts?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (42:17):
Yes, that's correct.
Attorney Smircic (42:19):
What areas displayed in this photograph did you take for cutting because they indicated the presence of blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (42:28):
So it's areas two and three.
Attorney Smircic (42:33):
So area two appears to be in the... Is that the back waistband of the pants?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (42:40):
Yes, that looks-
Attorney Smircic (42:41):
Or the boxers, excuse me.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (42:43):
Yes, they're on the waistband of the pants.
Attorney Smircic (42:44):
And area three is right here in the crotch area?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (42:46):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (42:57):
And Ms. Chowdhury, did you take those areas that indicated the presence of blood for further DNA testing?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (43:05):
Yes. I took cuttings from those areas and labeled them as item 9-1 from area two and 9-2 from area three.
Attorney Smircic (43:15):
May I approach?
Judge (43:16):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (43:25):
Ms. Chowdhury, I'm showing you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 100 and 101. Do you recognize those envelopes?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (43:33):
Yes. State's Exhibit 100 is a cutting from the boxer shorts from area three labeled as item 9-2. State's Exhibit 101 is a cutting from the boxer shorts, area two, labeled as item 9-1.
Attorney Smircic (43:49):
And do these envelopes appear to be in a similar condition as when you took them for testing properly marked?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (43:56):
Yes, it is.
Attorney Smircic (43:58):
Judge, the state would move to enter State's 100 and 101 into evidence.
Judge (44:02):
Any objection?
Lawyer 2 (44:03):
No, sir.
Judge (44:04):
State's exhibits 100 and 101 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Smircic (44:11):
Thank you. Ms. Chowdhury, let's talk about the next item you analyzed. I want to talk about item 10, the red earbuds. Did you do any kind of body fluid identification on this item?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (44:28):
No, I did not.
Attorney Smircic (44:29):
What did you do with this item?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (44:31):
I just took a swabbing of item 10. It was requested that a collection for what we call epithelial cells be taken. So for instance, if you were to touch a surface, there's a possibility you could leave behind skin cells and those skin cells may have DNA. And so I can swab items of evidence where I believe there would be possible skin cells left behind from being touched. We call that touch DNA, and that can be collected for DNA analysis.
Attorney Smircic (45:10):
How do you actually take a swabbing or DNA analysis on this item?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (45:15):
So swabbing is taken by using a sterile swab and then placing just a drop of sterile water. In this case, it was what we call DI water, deionized water, and it does not have DNA. And then I would take the swabbing and rub it on the item of evidence.
Attorney Smircic (45:41):
And then that swabbing would be sent to be analyzed for DNA?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (45:46):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (45:47):
Judge, if I may republish State's 98.
Judge (45:51):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (46:03):
Ms. Chowdhury, is this item 10 the red earbuds that you swabbed for DNA analysis?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (46:08):
Yes, it is.
Attorney Smircic (46:10):
And I'm publishing page 86 of your lab packet. Ms. Chowdhury, this area you've circled here, what is that area on the earbuds?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (46:21):
That is the area that I swabbed.
Attorney Smircic (46:24):
So were you swabbing along this entire stretch of cords?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (46:31):
Yes, I swabbed along that stretch of cord.
Attorney Smircic (46:38):
And so it appears you swabbed the cord, and not the earbuds themself, is that correct?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (46:44):
No, I restricted to where I circled.
Attorney Smircic (46:46):
May I approach?
Judge (46:49):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (46:56):
Ms. Chowdhury, I'm showing you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 102. What is contained in that envelope?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (47:02):
State's Exhibit 102 is item 10-1 and it contains a swabbing from the red earbuds.
Attorney Smircic (47:08):
Okay. And substantially similar condition other than the swabbing being tested for DNA?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (47:14):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (47:15):
Judge, I would move to enter State's Exhibit 102 into evidence.
Judge (47:20):
Any objection?
Lawyer 2 (47:21):
No, sir.
Judge (47:22):
State's Exhibit 102 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Smircic (47:32):
Ms. Chowdhury, in this lab report, you also analyzed item 16, a gray and white sheet, item 17, another sheet, and item 20, a tan pillowcase. Is that correct?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (47:51):
Yes, that's correct.
Attorney Smircic (47:52):
And what were you testing them for and what were the results?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (48:00):
Of these items, I was testing for blood and semen.
Attorney Smircic (48:05):
And what about, let's start with the presence of blood, the Kastle-Meyer test. Did anything give the indications for the presence of blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (48:14):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (48:16):
Which items?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (48:17):
So item 16, 17, and item 20.
Attorney Smircic (48:23):
And I believe 16 is a white bedsheet and 17 is a white and gray bedsheet, is that right?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (48:27):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (48:29):
And the tan pillow case also indicated the presence of blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (48:33):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (48:35):
Would that have been set for further testing?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (48:49):
In this case, it was not.
Attorney Smircic (48:56):
Did you also test these items, the white bedsheet, the white and gray bedsheet, and the tan pillowcase for the presence of semen?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (49:07):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (49:09):
What did that result?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (49:12):
They were negative.
Attorney Smircic (49:20):
May I republish State's 98?
Judge (49:22):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (49:35):
Ms. Chowdhury, I'm publishing page 89 of your lab packet. Is this item 16 the white sheet that you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (49:48):
Yes, it is.
Attorney Smircic (49:50):
And did you circle... Or explain to the jury what those numbers are in the areas you circled?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (49:58):
Okay. Could you repeat which item number was this again?
Attorney Smircic (50:00):
16.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (50:01):
16. Yes. Okay. So the areas that I have circled, I did examine first using the alternate light source. So I circled areas that were fluorescing. And in those areas I did test for acid phosphatase.
Attorney Smircic (50:26):
In all of those areas?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (50:27):
I tested for acid phosphatase on areas one through 122 and 123 through 191 and 192. Yes. So yes, all of them.
Attorney Smircic (50:41):
And I'll show you the next pages in a minute, but what areas did you test for blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (50:50):
I tested areas one, area 59, and area 60.
Attorney Smircic (50:57):
And this is part of that sheet and some of those enumerated areas, is that correct?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (51:03):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (51:05):
If I go to page 90 of your report, again, is that other areas of this sheet that you circled and noted and tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (51:14):
Yes, they are.
Attorney Smircic (51:18):
Going to page 91 of your report, again, other areas you noted and tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (51:25):
Yes, they are.
Attorney Smircic (51:30):
Page 92, same sheet?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (51:35):
Yes. Same sheet, more areas tested.
Attorney Smircic (51:38):
So you tested quite a few areas on this sheet, is that fair to say?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (51:41):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (51:43):
Page 93 of your lab packet, again, other areas you've tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (51:49):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (51:54):
Page 94?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (51:56):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (51:58):
The enumerated areas again?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (52:00):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (52:03):
Page 95?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (52:03):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (52:05):
Is that areas of item 16 that you circled and tested as well?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (52:09):
Yes. Those are areas I circled and tested.
Attorney Smircic (52:11):
Page 96?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (52:17):
Yes. Those are areas circled and tested.
Attorney Smircic (52:19):
So you tested well over 100 areas, is that correct?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (52:22):
Correct. I think there's a total of 192.
Attorney Smircic (52:25):
Again, page 97, more of those areas as well?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (52:30):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (52:34):
98, again, more of the areas of the sheets you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (52:37):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (52:40):
99?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (52:42):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (52:43):
Same thing?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (52:43):
Same thing and...
Attorney Smircic (52:45):
100?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (52:46):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (52:50):
And for item 16, can you tell us again what areas you tested for semen? What numbered areas?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (53:03):
I tested areas one through 192 for acid phosphatase.
Attorney Smircic (53:12):
So 100 through 192?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (53:12):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (53:14):
So all the areas?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (53:15):
Yes. Yeah.
Attorney Smircic (53:16):
And which areas did you do the Kastle-Meyer test on?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (53:23):
Areas one, 59, and area 60. So area one, area 59, and area 60.
Attorney Smircic (53:34):
And area one, 59, and 60, why did you test those areas with the Kastle-Meyer test report?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (53:43):
They were showing reddish brown staining.
Attorney Smircic (53:47):
And I want to go back to those areas. Does this sheet show area one?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (53:58):
Yes, it does.
Attorney Smircic (54:01):
So that would be this area right here?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (54:02):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (54:05):
And you said 59 and 60 as well?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (54:07):
Yes. 59 and 60.
Attorney Smircic (54:09):
For the record, I republished page 89, and I'm republishing page 93 of the lab packet. You said you tested area 59 and 60 with the Kastle-Meyer test as well?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (54:27):
Yes, I did.
Attorney Smircic (54:29):
59 is right here and 60 is right here?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (54:31):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (54:36):
And those results were positive, right?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (54:40):
For, yes, the Kastle-Meyer test.
Attorney Smircic (54:47):
Ms. Chowdhury, did you do any DNA analysis in this case?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (54:52):
No, I did not.
Attorney Smircic (54:52):
If it was done, it would've been done by another lab analyst, correct?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (54:58):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (55:00):
And the line of this case record four, your second lab report we just talked about, did you produce a summarization lab report in this case?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (55:09):
I did.
Attorney Smircic (55:09):
May I approach?
Judge (55:09):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (56:01):
Ms. Chowdhury, I'm approaching with State's Exhibit 103, which is a two-page document. Is that the report you produced summarizing your findings we just talked about?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (56:11):
Yes. State's Exhibit 103 is the summary of my lab report.
Attorney Smircic (56:16):
Appear to be changed or altered in any way?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (56:19):
No.
Attorney Smircic (56:19):
Has your signature at the bottom?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (56:21):
Yes, it does.
Attorney Smircic (56:22):
Judge, the state would move to enter State's 103 into evidence.
Judge (56:26):
Any objection?
Lawyer 2 (56:27):
No, sir.
Judge (56:28):
State's Exhibit 103 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Smircic (56:31):
May I approach?
Judge (56:31):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (57:02):
Ms. Chowdhury, once again, this is your lab report that summarizes your findings?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (57:07):
Yes, it does.
Attorney Smircic (57:08):
And you dated this report March 20th of 2018?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (57:12):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (57:13):
Has the lab number, the items you received, as well as the results that you just testified to on the second page?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (57:20):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (57:41):
Ms. Chowdhury, I want to go back to item 17, the gray and white sheet. And Ms. Chowdhury... Judge, if I may republish State's 98.
Judge (58:25):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (58:26):
Ms. Chowdhury, I'm showing you page 101 of your lab packet. Is that the gray and white sheet you tested as well?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (58:42):
Yes, it is.
Attorney Smircic (58:47):
Again, did you test various areas of this sheet and mark them on here?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (58:52):
Yes, I did.
Attorney Smircic (58:53):
And you did that on page 101, page 102?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:01):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (59:03):
103?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:04):
Correct. Yes.
Attorney Smircic (59:08):
104?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:08):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (59:08):
105?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:08):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (59:08):
106?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:08):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (59:18):
And there were a lot of areas you tested on this sheet as well, is that right?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:22):
Correct. Yes. There's a total of 67 areas.
Attorney Smircic (59:27):
And you did that on 107 as well, page 107?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:30):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (59:33):
Again, you documented on page 108 some more areas you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:36):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (59:39):
As well as 109?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:40):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (59:43):
And 110?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:46):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (59:47):
Same thing?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:47):
Mm-hmm.
Attorney Smircic (59:48):
As well as 111?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (59:52):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (59:54):
And which areas for this sheet did you test for semen?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:00:04):
I tested all of them and they were negative.
Attorney Smircic (01:00:09):
And that was one through 67?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:00:10):
One through 67.
Attorney Smircic (01:00:12):
Which areas did you test for blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:00:16):
I tested area 19 and area 20.
Attorney Smircic (01:00:19):
Okay. I'm going to republish where you marked those areas. Looking at page 104, does this show areas 19 and 20?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:00:42):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:00:43):
Is 19 over here?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:00:46):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (01:00:46):
And area 20 over here?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:00:48):
Yes, that's correct.
Attorney Smircic (01:00:49):
And you did the Kastle-Meyer test for blood on them because they were a reddish brown stain?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:00:54):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:00:57):
And what were the results again?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:00:58):
They were positive for indications of blood.
Attorney Smircic (01:01:03):
I want to talk about the tan pillowcase, your lab item 20. I'm publishing page 112 of your lab packet. Is this the pillowcase that you tested?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:01:21):
Yes, it is.
Attorney Smircic (01:01:23):
As well and the areas you marked for testing?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:01:25):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:01:27):
As well as on page 113. Again, are those areas you marked for testing on the pillowcase?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:01:33):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:01:35):
Which areas did you... Or how many areas total did you mark?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:01:40):
I marked 14 areas.
Attorney Smircic (01:01:42):
And which areas did you test for semen?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:01:47):
I tested all of them, one through 14.
Attorney Smircic (01:01:51):
And it was negative?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:01:52):
Yes, they were negative.
Attorney Smircic (01:01:53):
Which areas did you test for blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:01:56):
Area 11, 13, and 14.
Attorney Smircic (01:02:02):
Is that displayed here on page 113 of your lab packet?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:02:07):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (01:02:08):
And what numbers did you say again?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:02:10):
11-
Attorney Smircic (01:02:13):
Is that right here?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:02:17):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (01:02:17):
This area?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:02:17):
Yes. 11 and then 13.
Attorney Smircic (01:02:17):
Right here?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:02:17):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:02:17):
Okay.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:02:19):
And then 14.
Attorney Smircic (01:02:21):
Right over here, right?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:02:22):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:02:31):
Did you produce any other case records in this case?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:02:35):
No, I did not.
Attorney Smircic (01:02:39):
Just a moment, Judge. Nothing further, Judge.
Judge (01:02:54):
Cross-examination?
Lawyer 2 (01:02:55):
Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, Ms. Chowdhury.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:02:58):
Chowdhury, yes. Good morning.
Lawyer 2 (01:03:16):
In 2017, when you received these items, which section were you working in?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:03:22):
I was working in the forensic biology section.
Lawyer 2 (01:03:25):
And forensic biology is where you test for DNA?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:03:29):
Correct. And body fluids.
Lawyer 2 (01:03:29):
Okay. And DNA can be contained in different bodily fluids, right?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:03:41):
Correct. DNA is found in skin cells, semen, blood, saliva.
Lawyer 2 (01:03:49):
Are they found in urine?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:03:51):
Yes.
Lawyer 2 (01:03:59):
And when you received these, you don't have, or you didn't have a discussion with the investigating officers about what they suspected might be. That's on a written form, is that correct?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:04:11):
Yes. There's a submission form they submit asking what tests to be run.
Lawyer 2 (01:04:17):
Okay. And did any of the requests include saliva, urine, skin cell... Oh, you did some epithelial insertion. Was there a request to determine if urine or saliva were present?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:04:34):
No, we don't test for those at our laboratory.
Lawyer 2 (01:04:40):
And in the first report you testified about the vaginal swabs and the rectal swabs. With the vaginal swabs, did any of them test positive for blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:05:18):
They were not tested for blood.
Lawyer 2 (01:05:21):
They were tested only for semen?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:05:23):
Correct.
Lawyer 2 (01:05:23):
And none of them had a positive reading for semen?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:05:27):
There was no indications of the presence of semen.
Lawyer 2 (01:05:31):
That's based upon the presumptive test that you run?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:05:34):
Based off of the presumptive test, correct.
Lawyer 2 (01:05:36):
And the rectal swabs, they were tested for semen as well?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:05:42):
Correct.
Lawyer 2 (01:05:42):
None for blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:05:44):
None for blood.
Lawyer 2 (01:05:45):
And they were negative as well?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:05:47):
Negative for?
Lawyer 2 (01:05:49):
Semen.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:05:49):
Yes, they were negative for semen.
Lawyer 2 (01:05:53):
The clitoral hood was tested, that swab was tested as well?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:05:57):
Correct.
Lawyer 2 (01:05:58):
And it was negative for semen?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:06:00):
Yes, it was a negative, failed to indicate presence of semen.
Lawyer 2 (01:06:21):
The boxer shorts, you testified that certain sections, the areas that you identified tested positive for blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:06:36):
Correct. Indications of blood.
Lawyer 2 (01:06:39):
And you cannot determine when that blood may have been deposited on those shorts?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:06:47):
No, I cannot.
Lawyer 2 (01:06:56):
And area four for the boxer shorts, that was on the rear of the shorts, not the front, but the back?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:07:20):
This is item nine, correct? The boxer shorts?
Lawyer 2 (01:07:22):
Yes.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:07:24):
Okay. Area four, I know it's on the waistband. I don't have notes about where in the location, but if we were to take out the physical evidence, it would be marked.
Lawyer 2 (01:07:35):
So area four was the waistband.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:07:38):
Oh, hold on. Let me double check on that. Oh, sorry. I misspoke. Area two was on the waistband. Area four was on the shorts itself. I believe it's on the back of the shorts.
Lawyer 2 (01:08:01):
Thank you. And you detected some area on the fly for semen or for blood?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:08:35):
Which item are we speaking of?
Lawyer 2 (01:08:37):
It would be item number nine-
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:08:48):
On item number nine.
Lawyer 2 (01:09:02):
... of these. The first.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:09:03):
You're referring to item number nine?
Lawyer 2 (01:09:03):
Yes.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:09:03):
Okay.
Lawyer 2 (01:09:03):
The area of the fly.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:09:06):
Yes, there was area three. There was area three tested indications... It was positive for indications of blood.
Lawyer 2 (01:09:22):
Was not tested for semen?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:09:23):
No, it was not.
Lawyer 2 (01:09:31):
Did he touch DNA in item 10? You submitted that, you did the rubbings, you submitted that to the DNA section?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:09:42):
I took a swabbing of item 10 and sent for DNA analysis.
Lawyer 2 (01:09:46):
You did not test that?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:09:47):
No, I did not test that.
Lawyer 2 (01:09:59):
On item 16, the white bedsheet-
Lawyer 2 (01:10:00):
... 16, the white bed sheet, there were multiple indications of blood. Is that correct?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:10:09):
Yes. There were areas that were indicative of blood.
Lawyer 2 (01:10:12):
And did any of those areas also test positive for semen?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:10:18):
No, they did not.
Lawyer 2 (01:10:19):
So there's no semen on the sheet?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:10:21):
There's no indications of semen.
Lawyer 2 (01:10:21):
No indication.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:10:24):
The test did not detect presence of semen.
Lawyer 2 (01:10:33):
You did not get a positive reading from the presumptive testing that you did?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:10:37):
Correct. It was a negative reading.
Lawyer 2 (01:10:40):
Item number 17 was tested for the presence of blood, and likewise it contained multiple areas?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:10:48):
Yes. Item number 17, there were areas that showed indications of blood.
Lawyer 2 (01:10:53):
Was it tested for semen as well?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:10:55):
Yes, it was.
Lawyer 2 (01:10:58):
Was there any semen found?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:10:58):
It failed to detect indications of semen.
Lawyer 2 (01:11:00):
The pillowcase, I think that... I'm not sure what that item was, but it was also tested for blood.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:11:17):
The pillowcase is item 20, and yes, it had tested indications for blood, positive for indications of blood.
Lawyer 2 (01:11:25):
And was it also tested for semen?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:11:31):
Yes, it was also tested for semen.
Lawyer 2 (01:11:31):
Was there any indication of semen?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:11:35):
It was negative for indications of semen.
Lawyer 2 (01:11:48):
And you're not able to say that the areas that tested positive for blood, you cannot say when they were placed on either the sheets or the pillowcase?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:12:02):
No, I can't.
Lawyer 2 (01:12:15):
All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:12:15):
Redirect?
Attorney Smircic (01:12:20):
Yes, Judge.
(01:12:20)
Ms. Choudhury, Mr. Britt asked you about testing for saliva or urine and you said the lab doesn't do that. Do you know why?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:12:31):
I don't know exactly why, but we don't have those tests.
Attorney Smircic (01:12:40):
And Ms. Choudhury, Mr. Britt asked you about item 10, the red earbuds and the swabbing for touch DNA. Do you know if you're swabbing for touch DNA or it could be from any source? It doesn't necessarily mean it's touch DNA, right?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:12:58):
I mean, I can't physically tell. Yeah, unless there's... There was no testing for any body fluids. I don't know if there were any body fluids on those items. It was to test if there's a possibility of DNA on that item.
Attorney Smircic (01:13:18):
Okay. Could come from skin cells?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:13:20):
Yes. Whatever. If there was any transfer of any kind of cell that contains DNA, yes, that could be on that item. But here, no testing for body fluids was done on that item.
Attorney Smircic (01:13:33):
Judge, may I approach?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:13:35):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (01:13:50):
Ms. Choudhury, this is what's already been admitted as State's 40, which is lab item nine, the boxer shorts?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:13:57):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (01:13:58):
Mr. Britt asked you about where on the waistband they are.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:14:02):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:14:12):
Thank you. If I show you the item, would you be able to answer that question?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:14:17):
Yes. Yes. Here.
Attorney Smircic (01:14:48):
And Judge, may I ask Ms. Choudhury to publish State's 40 and show where area two in the waistband is-
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:14:57):
All right, ma'am-
Attorney Smircic (01:14:57):
... by holding it up.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:14:59):
... I'm going to have you step down and then Ms. Smircic, I'll have you hand them to her after she's... Go ahead and step down.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:15:06):
Okay.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:15:07):
And then after you step down, then you can show the jury.
Lawyer 2 (01:15:08):
Your Honor, may I reposition?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:15:08):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (01:15:20):
Can you show the jury where area two was taken?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:15:23):
Area two is here on the band.
Attorney Smircic (01:15:26):
Is that the back or the front of the boxer?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:15:30):
The back of the boxer.
Attorney Smircic (01:15:35):
And where was area four taken?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:15:41):
Area four is on the back of the boxer.
Attorney Smircic (01:15:45):
And what about the other area taken for your cutting?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:15:52):
And then area three, these are the front.
Attorney Smircic (01:16:04):
Thank you.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:16:20):
Do you want her up there anymore?
Attorney Smircic (01:16:20):
Yes, she can retake the stand.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:16:20):
All right.
Attorney Smircic (01:16:20):
She can take her gloves off. Thank you. Nothing further, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:16:40):
Any recross?
Lawyer 2 (01:16:41):
Yes, sir. Just briefly. Ms. Choudhury, the earbuds, you did the swabbing of the cord?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:16:49):
Correct.
Lawyer 2 (01:16:50):
You didn't swab the actual earbuds themselves?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:16:54):
No, I did not.
Lawyer 2 (01:16:55):
And then you sent that on to the DNA section?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:16:56):
Correct.
Lawyer 2 (01:16:56):
Or did you test those?
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:17:00):
No, I did not test those. The swabbing was taken and given for DNA analysis.
Lawyer 2 (01:17:04):
All right. Thank you.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:17:06):
Is this witness subject to recall?
Attorney Smircic (01:17:07):
No, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:17:08):
On behalf of the defense?
Lawyer 2 (01:17:10):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:17:10):
All right, ma'am, you're released from your obligations of your subpoena. You may step down you're free to go.
Mehnaz Chowdhury (01:17:14):
Thank you, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:17:23):
Thank you. All right, members of the jury, we're going to go ahead and take our mid-morning break at this time. Close up your notebooks. As you break, remember, do not discuss this case amongst yourselves. Do not discuss this case with anyone else. Do not have any contact with any of the parties, attorneys, or witnesses. Do not post online on any social media sites, and do not conduct any independent investigation. We will have you exit and reconvene in 15 minutes.
Bailiff (01:18:00):
Thank you, Your Honor. Make sure your notebooks are properly close and leave them on your seats. When you're ready [inaudible 01:18:05] this way.
(01:18:00)
Jury has left the courtroom, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:18:37):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has exited the courtroom. Anything we need to discuss on behalf of the defense?
Lawyer 2 (01:18:43):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:18:43):
On behalf of the state?
Attorney Smircic (01:18:44):
No, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:18:45):
All right. We'll be in recess for 15 minutes.
Lawyer 2 (01:33:58):
Thank you.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:33:58):
Anything we need to discuss on behalf of the state?
Attorney Smircic (01:34:00):
No, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:34:01):
On behalf of the defense?
Lawyer 2 (01:34:02):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:34:03):
Let's bring our jury back in. Bring in the jury.
Bailiff (01:34:45):
Jury is seated.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:34:46):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has reentered the courtroom. State, you may call your next witness.
Attorney Smircic (01:34:51):
The state calls Kristin Meyer to the stand.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:34:54):
All right, ma'am. If you can make your way around here to the witness stand, please. Before you have a seat, you can place your left hand on the Bible. Raise your right hand.
Court Reporter (01:35:16):
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give in court today will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Kristin Meyer (01:35:21):
I do.
Court Reporter (01:35:21):
Thank you.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:35:27):
Ma'am, please remember to speak loudly and clearly into that microphone. Make sure all of your answers are out loud, no head shakes or nods. Everything has to be a yes or a no. Please wait for the attorneys to be done asking their question before you give a response. Can you do that?
Bailiff (01:35:40):
Yes, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:35:41):
Thank you. State, you may proceed.
Attorney Smircic (01:35:42):
Thank you, Judge. Can you state your name and spell it for Madam Court Reporter?
Kristin Meyer (01:35:46):
My name's Kristin Meyer, K-R-I-S-T-I-N, M-E-Y-E-R.
Attorney Smircic (01:35:53):
Ms. Meyer, where do you currently work?
Kristin Meyer (01:35:56):
I currently work in Durham, North Carolina at a company called Bioagilytx, B-I-O-A-G-I-L-Y-T-X.
Attorney Smircic (01:36:09):
Did you previously work at the State Crime Lab?
Kristin Meyer (01:36:12):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (01:36:13):
What was your role at the State Crime Lab and how long did you work there?
Kristin Meyer (01:36:17):
My role at the State Crime Lab when I was there was a forensic DNA analyst, and I was there for approximately 14 or 15 years.
Attorney Smircic (01:36:30):
When did you leave the State Crime Lab?
Kristin Meyer (01:36:32):
January of 2019.
Attorney Smircic (01:36:36):
What were your duties and responsibilities at the State Crime Lab when you worked there as a forensic DNA analyst?
Kristin Meyer (01:36:43):
As a forensic DNA analyst, my job was to receive items of evidence submitted from law enforcement agencies across the state and attempt to develop DNA profiles from the evidence and to analyze those profiles and make reports based on my findings and interpretations of that evidence, of the DNA evidence, issue the report, and then testify in court when needed.
Attorney Smircic (01:37:08):
What is your educational background?
Kristin Meyer (01:37:10):
I have a Bachelor's of Science degree in Biology from Northeastern University, which is in Boston, Massachusetts. And I also have a Master's of Forensic Science with a concentration in Forensic Molecular Biology from the George Washington University, which is in Washington, DC.
Attorney Smircic (01:37:29):
When you worked at the State Crime Lab, were you certified?
Kristin Meyer (01:37:32):
Yes, I was.
Attorney Smircic (01:37:33):
And what were you certified in?
Kristin Meyer (01:37:34):
I was certified by the American Board of Criminalistics, and I recall it was for DNA biology.
Attorney Smircic (01:37:46):
Have you ever testified in court as an expert witness?
Kristin Meyer (01:37:48):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (01:37:49):
Approximately how many times?
Kristin Meyer (01:37:51):
Between 50 and 60 times. That includes both state and federal court.
Attorney Smircic (01:38:04):
May I approach?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:38:05):
You may.
Lawyer 2 (01:38:05):
104?
Attorney Smircic (01:38:19):
Yes. Ms. Meyer, I'm showing you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 104, which is a document. What is this document?
Kristin Meyer (01:38:28):
State's Exhibit 104 appears to be a copy of my CV at the time that I was at the crime laboratory.
Attorney Smircic (01:38:36):
Okay. So does this CV list all your education, background, and experience from the time you were at the State Crime Lab? I believe this CV was last updated 2018, is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (01:38:52):
Yes, 2018. Yep.
Attorney Smircic (01:38:54):
So this would've been all of your qualifications, education, experience when you tested the items we're here for today?
Kristin Meyer (01:38:59):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (01:39:01):
Any changes, alterations, deletions, everything appear to be accurate?
Kristin Meyer (01:39:11):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:39:12):
Judge, the state would move to enter State's 104 into evidence.
Lawyer 2 (01:39:13):
No objection.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:39:17):
State's Exhibit 104 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Smircic (01:39:22):
Judge, at this time, the State would tender Ms. Meyer as an expert in forensic DNA analysis.
Lawyer 2 (01:39:29):
No objection.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:39:37):
Witness will be qualified as an expert in the field of forensic DNA analysis.
Attorney Smircic (01:39:42):
Ms. Meyer, can you explain, as simple as you can, what is DNA?
Kristin Meyer (01:39:47):
DNA is a chemical that's found in all living things and is often referred to as a genetic blueprint because it provides all the information necessary for everything for the color of your eyes to the construction of your internal organs. DNA, at least the type of DNA that I've tested in this case is inherited half from mom and half from dad. DNA doesn't change over time. It remains consistent throughout your life. It might degrade and break down into smaller pieces, but it ultimately doesn't change. Something else to keep in mind about DNA is that the DNA that's found in blood is the same DNA that's found in saliva and skin cells.
Attorney Smircic (01:40:34):
How do you conduct DNA analysis?
Kristin Meyer (01:40:37):
DNA analysis can be broken down into four basic steps. The first step is to do what's called extraction or to use a series of chemicals to remove DNA from the items being tested. Once I have extracted DNA from items of evidence, excuse me, I then need to get an estimate of how much DNA I extracted or I was able to obtain. That step is called quantitation. Once I know how much DNA, if any, that I obtained during that extraction process, I can then amplify that DNA, which means making millions and millions of copies of the DNA, targeting specific areas that I want to look at that are different between individuals. And once that DNA is, excuse me, amplified, I then put it on an instrument that can separate out the areas that I need to look at in order to make my comparisons.
Attorney Smircic (01:41:32):
And these procedures you just described and the ones you used when you worked at the State Crime Lab, were they widely accepted as valid scientific tests in the scientific community?
Kristin Meyer (01:41:41):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (01:41:43):
When evidence is submitted to the State Crime Lab, what happens when the lab receives it?
Kristin Meyer (01:41:48):
Generally when evidence is submitted to the crime lab, either through the mail or in person by a law enforcement agency, it's received by the evidence custody unit where the case will then be assigned a unique laboratory case number. All the items will have unique item numbers assigned to it under that case number. The evidence is then stored in secured vaults until it is queued up for analysis by DNA or latents or whichever section or unit needs to process the evidence.
Attorney Smircic (01:42:20):
And is chain of custody documented at the lab and how does that work?
Kristin Meyer (01:42:24):
Yes, absolutely. It's documented through a lab management system called Forensic Advantage, and all transfers of evidence are done through a secured password between individuals and locations.
Attorney Smircic (01:42:36):
Did you receive items of evidence in this particular case?
Kristin Meyer (01:42:39):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (01:42:43):
Ms. Meyer, you actually were involved in testing items of evidence in this case that produced two lab reports, is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (01:42:52):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:42:54):
And were those identified at the lab as case record three and five?
Kristin Meyer (01:42:58):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:43:01):
And do you generate a lab packet with your lab report, as well as all your notes and testing done?
Kristin Meyer (01:43:10):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:43:11):
May I approach?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:43:12):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (01:43:30):
Ms. Meyer, I'm showing you a disc which is marked as State's Exhibit 105. Do you recognize that?
Kristin Meyer (01:43:36):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (01:43:37):
What is contained on that disc?
Kristin Meyer (01:43:39):
The digital copies of both my case records in this case.
Attorney Smircic (01:43:42):
Records three and five?
Kristin Meyer (01:43:43):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:43:45):
And you reviewed those prior to testifying today to make sure everything was accurate and as you produced it?
Kristin Meyer (01:43:50):
First thing this morning, yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:43:52):
And the state would move at this time to enter State's 105 into evidence.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:43:55):
Any objection?
Lawyer 2 (01:43:55):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:43:56):
State's Exhibit 105 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Smircic (01:44:03):
Ms. Meyer, let's talk about the first lab record you produced and the items you tested, which would be lab record three. What items did you test in this first report that you did?
Kristin Meyer (01:44:22):
In my first report or first case record in this case, I analyzed laboratory items 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 4, 5, 6, 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3, as well as items 1, 2, and 3-1.
Attorney Smircic (01:44:55):
Judge, may I approach?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:44:56):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (01:45:08):
Ms. Meyer, I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as state 17. Is that live item 3-2?
Kristin Meyer (01:45:33):
Yes, ma'am, it is.
Attorney Smircic (01:45:34):
And what is that item?
Kristin Meyer (01:45:38):
State's Exhibit 17?
Attorney Smircic (01:45:39):
Yes.
Kristin Meyer (01:45:40):
I recognize as the laboratory item 3-2, which was identified as the vaginal swab and smear. And I can recognize the item based upon the unique crime lab case number, which is on a printed barcode sticker. And also I recognize my handwriting for the dates that I received, open and sealed the item.
Attorney Smircic (01:46:02):
And I'm going to show you a bunch of items. Are you identifying them each time by your initials as well as the state crime lab sticker?
Kristin Meyer (01:46:10):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:46:13):
I'm going to now show you what's been already admitted as state's 15. Which lab item is that?
Kristin Meyer (01:46:19):
State's item 15 is laboratory item 3-3, which was identified as rectal swabs and smear. And again, I recognize this through the same process of the unique laboratory case number, item number, the barcoded sticker, and the dates that I received, open and sealed the item.
Attorney Smircic (01:46:39):
And what about what's already been admitted as state's 14?
Kristin Meyer (01:46:46):
State's item 14 is my laboratory, our laboratory item number 3-4, which is identified as clitoral hood swabs. And again, I recognize it through the same as before with unique laboratory case number, item number, the sticker with the barcode, and my initials and dates that I received, opened and sealed item.
Attorney Smircic (01:47:11):
And what's already been admitted as State's Exhibit 16, which item is that you tested?
Kristin Meyer (01:47:17):
State's Exhibit 16, I recognize as laboratory item 3-5, which is identified as the external perineal swabs. Again, the unique case number, item number, the laboratory sticker, barcode, and my initials and the dates that I received, open and sealed the item.
Attorney Smircic (01:47:35):
And what's already been admitted as state's 13C, do you recognize that item as well?
Kristin Meyer (01:47:42):
Yes. State's Exhibit 13C, I recognize as laboratory item 3-6, which was identified as ear swabs. And I recognize that due to the sticker with unique laboratory case number, item number, and the dates that I received, open and sealed the item.
Attorney Smircic (01:48:19):
Ms. Meyer, I'm showing you what's already been admitted as state's 13B. What lab item is that?
Kristin Meyer (01:48:27):
Excuse me. State's item 13B is identified as laboratory item 3-1, which is the known blood sample from Paitin Fields.
Attorney Smircic (01:48:40):
And would that have been used to get a DNA profile for Paitin Fields?
Kristin Meyer (01:48:44):
Yes. Excuse me. What we need when analyzing DNA evidence is we also need to have DNA profiles from known or potential participants in the event. So known standards from victims, suspects, or anybody else who may have DNA present in the case.
Attorney Smircic (01:49:07):
I'm going to next draw your attention to what's already been admitted as state's 21A, 21B, 21C, 21D, and 21E. What lab items are contained in those envelopes?
Kristin Meyer (01:49:41):
So, excuse me, state's Exhibit 21E is our laboratory item 7-1, which is the swabbings and scrapings from the right hand. And I recognize this based on the unique case identifier, the item number, my initials and date that I received, open and sealed item. State's Exhibit 21D is identified as my laboratory item. I believe it still says 7-1. Also, the swabbings and scrapings from the right hand. Again, I recognize this based on the unique case identification number assigned to it, the item number, my initials that I received, open and sealed item.
Attorney Smircic (01:50:28):
And looking at all of these, are these actually all 7-1?
Kristin Meyer (01:50:32):
Yeah. All of these items are described as, excuse me, item 7-1, which is swabbings and scrapings from the right hand.
Attorney Smircic (01:50:45):
Okay. And again, these were items that you tested?
Kristin Meyer (01:50:47):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:50:47):
Okay. I'm going to draw your attention to... It's already been admitted as state's 21F, 21G, 21H, 21I, and 21S. What lab item are contained in these envelopes?
Kristin Meyer (01:51:20):
These envelopes all contain laboratory item 7-2, which is identified as the swabbings and scrapings from the left hand.
Attorney Smircic (01:51:36):
And I'm showing you what's already been admitted as state's Exhibit 21K. Do you recognize that envelope?
Kristin Meyer (01:51:46):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (01:51:47):
And what is it?
Kristin Meyer (01:51:49):
State's Exhibit 21K, I recognize as laboratory item 7-3 in this case, which was identified as swabs from the left foot posterior.
Attorney Smircic (01:52:00):
Thank you. And Ms. Meyer, I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as state's Exhibit 42. Do you recognize that envelope?
Kristin Meyer (01:52:17):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (01:52:17):
And what lab item is that and what's contained in it?
Kristin Meyer (01:52:21):
State's Exhibit 42 I can identify as laboratory item number four, which was identified as the plastic nozzle from a whipped cream can.
Attorney Smircic (01:52:32):
Again, one of the items you tested?
Kristin Meyer (01:52:34):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:52:35):
I'm going to show you state's Exhibit 50. Can you identify that item?
Kristin Meyer (01:52:43):
Yes. State's Exhibit 50 is I recognize as our item, laboratory item number five, which was identified as nail scrapings from both hands.
Attorney Smircic (01:52:55):
And is that labeled on this envelope as "Nail scrapings Prevatte?"
Kristin Meyer (01:53:02):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:53:06):
I'm next showing you what's already been admitted as state's Exhibit 72. Do you recognize that?
Kristin Meyer (01:53:12):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (01:53:14):
What is it?
Kristin Meyer (01:53:15):
State's Exhibit 72 is our laboratory item six, which was identified as penile swabs.
Attorney Smircic (01:53:24):
And again, on state 72, does that say "Penile swab Prevatte?"
Kristin Meyer (01:53:28):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:53:32):
And Ms. Meyer, I'm showing you what's already been admitted as state's Exhibit 36. Do you recognize that item?
Kristin Meyer (01:53:45):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (01:53:46):
What is that?
Kristin Meyer (01:53:47):
Excuse me. State's Exhibit, excuse me, 36, I can identify as laboratory item number one, which is identified as a cheek swab from David Prevatte.
Attorney Smircic (01:54:00):
And I'm showing you what's already been admitted as state's Exhibit 37. Do you recognize that item?
Kristin Meyer (01:54:08):
Yes, I do. State's Exhibit 37, I recognize as laboratory item number two, which is identified as a cheek swab from Dale Hunt.
Attorney Smircic (01:54:15):
And Ms. Meyer, all of these items of evidence that you've identified, those were the items that you used for testing in your first lab report?
Kristin Meyer (01:54:28):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (01:54:35):
And Ms. Meyer, I want to start with the items you tested, including items from the sexual assault kit 3-2, the vaginal swab and smear, 3/3, the rectal swab and smear, 3-4, the clitoral hood swabs, 3- 5, the external perineal swabs, 3-6, the ear swabs, as well as 7-1 and 7-2, which were the swabbings and scrapings from Paitin Field's hands. Let's start with this. What are you testing these items for?
Kristin Meyer (01:55:18):
Based on the case circumstances provided to us, those items in particular, I would be looking specifically for any male DNA, finding the female victim on her own intimate items, vaginal swabs, swab from her ear, fingernails is not what I'm really looking for or being asked to look for. So specifically for those items, I'm being asked to look for potential male DNA presence.
Attorney Smircic (01:55:47):
When you got those items, what do you quantify? Do you quantify male DNA first or you quantify something else first?
Kristin Meyer (01:55:53):
At the time that this case was worked at the laboratory, our system for quantitation or getting estimates of DNA could detect both total human DNA present as well as any potential male DNA present.
Attorney Smircic (01:56:13):
And Ms. Meyer, when you were doing this testing, this was back towards the end of 2017, beginning of 2018?
Kristin Meyer (01:56:18):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (01:56:24):
So the first thing you did was look at total human DNA, is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (01:56:28):
I wouldn't say first, but it's the results simultaneous, but generally speaking, the order would be to look at total human DNA and then look at the potential male component.
Attorney Smircic (01:56:40):
And then you look at potential male DNA?
Kristin Meyer (01:56:43):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:56:46):
Out of these items we just talked about, which items potentially had male DNA on them?
Kristin Meyer (01:57:01):
From that group of items, the only items which could potentially have male DNA were items 3-4, 3-6, 7-1, and 7-2. Sorry.
Attorney Smircic (01:57:20):
And can you explain to the jury what you mean by they could have male DNA on them?
Kristin Meyer (01:57:28):
So the only way to really definitively or conclusively say that male DNA is present is you have to take that sample all the way through the DNA analysis process so you can actually see a result. If the sample does not have enough DNA to move forward because there's a threshold which we don't proceed if there's not enough DNA, I can't definitively say that there's male DNA if I don't move it all the way forward.
Attorney Smircic (01:57:55):
So were these samples 3-4, which is the clitoral hood swabs, 3-6, the ear swabs, 7-1 and 7-2, which were the swabbings and scrapings from Paitin's hands, were those samples showing a value for male DNA, but it wasn't enough to meet that threshold for further testing?
Kristin Meyer (01:58:19):
Yes, that's correct.
Attorney Smircic (01:58:27):
And further testing, what exactly would you be doing if it met the threshold for further testing?
Kristin Meyer (01:58:35):
If there had been sufficient amount of DNA present, if it had met that threshold, then it would've been carried through the remainder of the DNA process. So it would've been amplified and then put on the instrument where I could visualize the actual results of DNA profiles.
Attorney Smircic (01:58:52):
And so in summary, there wasn't an amplifiable amount of male DNA for you to further test and confirm?
Kristin Meyer (01:58:59):
For those items, yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:59:01):
What about the other items, 3-2, the vaginal swab, 3-3, the rectal swab, and 3-5, the external perineal swabs?
Kristin Meyer (01:59:15):
The quantitation results did not indicate any male DNA for those.
Attorney Smircic (01:59:31):
If the amount of male DNA in 3-4, 3-6, 7-1, and 7-2, the clitoral hood, the ear swabs and the nail scrapings had met the threshold and been able to be amplified, could you potentially generate a profile?
Kristin Meyer (01:59:53):
Potentially, yes.
Attorney Smircic (01:59:57):
You just weren't able to meet that threshold in this case?
Kristin Meyer (02:00:00):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (02:00:00):
Or in these items?
Kristin Meyer (02:00:01):
For those items, correct.
Attorney Smircic (02:00:10):
Ms. Meyer, I want to turn your attention to item 7-3, swabs from the left foot posterior Paitin Fields. What were the results of your DNA analysis for that?
Kristin Meyer (02:00:28):
So the quantitation results from laboratory item 7-3 did not indicate the presence of sufficient amplifiable DNA.
Attorney Smircic (02:00:36):
And what does that mean?
Kristin Meyer (02:00:37):
That means that there was not enough DNA at all, male, female, otherwise.
Attorney Smircic (02:00:42):
To do any further testing?
Kristin Meyer (02:00:43):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (02:00:53):
And lab item 7-3, that was a swab from the foot of Paitin Fields?
Kristin Meyer (02:00:59):
That's how it was identified to me, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:01:05):
I want to turn to lab items four and five, lab item four being the plastic nozzle from the whipped cream can, and item five being the nail scrapings from the hands of David Prevatte. What was the result of your DNA analysis for those items?
Kristin Meyer (02:01:27):
DNA profile was obtained from the swabbing from the nozzle and the nail scrapings from David Prevatte, laboratory items four and five, that matches the DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte. The DNA profiles obtained from Dale Hunt and Paitin Fields are excluded as contributors to this profile.
Attorney Smircic (02:01:46):
So items four and five had one DNA profile on it, is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (02:01:50):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (02:01:52):
And that one DNA profile you were able to conclude was David Prevatte?
Kristin Meyer (02:01:56):
It matched the DNA profile that I obtained for the standard for David Prevatte, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:02:01):
Judge, may I publish state's 105?
Judge (02:02:02):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (02:02:31):
Ms. Meyer, I'm publishing page 145 of your lab packet.
Mr. Bailiff (02:02:35):
Excuse me. Thank you.
Attorney Smircic (02:02:46):
If we can get a moment to get the defense TV set. Ms. Meyer, looking at page 145 of your lab packet, is that the whipped cream can nozzle that you swabbed and tested for DNA?
Kristin Meyer (02:03:04):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:03:05):
And you noted here that you swabbed the exterior and interior surface?
Kristin Meyer (02:03:10):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:03:21):
Ms. Meyer, was there an associated statistic for items four and five, the nozzle and the nail scrapings?
Kristin Meyer (02:03:30):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (02:03:31):
Can you explain to the jury what a DNA statistic is in your findings?
Kristin Meyer (02:03:37):
So whenever we have instance of a matched DNA match or somebody can't be excluded from contributing to a particular DNA profile and evidence, we can perform a statistic called the random match probability, which all that really means is if you go out into a population of random unrelated individuals, how many individuals would you have to go through to find that same profile?
Attorney Smircic (02:04:04):
And did you have an associated statistic for these findings on item four and five, the plastic nozzle and the nail scrapings from David Prevatte?
Kristin Meyer (02:04:13):
Yes, I did.
Attorney Smircic (02:04:14):
And what was that?
Kristin Meyer (02:04:15):
The probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with a DNA profile that matches the DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the nozzle and the nail clippings from David Prevatte is approximately one in 814 octillion in the Caucasian population, one in 249 decillion in the African American population, and one in 599 octillion in the Hispanic population using population databases generated by NIST.
Attorney Smircic (02:04:46):
So a pretty high number.
Kristin Meyer (02:04:52):
The numbers are large, yes. And they just reflect how... It gives weight to the match, which is something for the jury to determine or to use. It just shows how rare a potential profile is in a random unrelated population.
Attorney Smircic (02:05:13):
And Ms. Meyer, when you were testing these items and doing the DNA analysis, this was back in 2017, 2018?
Kristin Meyer (02:05:21):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:05:22):
I know you left the state crime lab in 2019, but to your knowledge, does the state crime lab, have they had advancements in technology and perhaps do things a little differently now when they do DNA comparisons?
Kristin Meyer (02:05:36):
I am sure that is true, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:05:42):
Ms. Meyer, I want to take you to item six, the penile swab from David Prevatte. What was the results of your DNA analysis for that?
Kristin Meyer (02:05:53):
The DNA profile obtained from the penile swab from David Prevatte is consistent with a mixture of three contributors containing a major DNA profile from an unknown contributor. The DNA profiles obtained from Dale Hunt and Paitin Fields are excluded as contributors to the major DNA profile. Assuming that David Prevatte, the donor of the known sample, is one of the sources of the minor DNA component from this profile, then the remaining component of the mixture obtained from the penile swab is inconclusive due to insufficient quantity and/or quality of recovered DNA.
Attorney Smircic (02:06:26):
Can you explain to the jury what it means to have a mixture versus a single source?
Kristin Meyer (02:06:33):
So as I said before, DNA is inherited from your parents, so you have two copies of DNA. So in every area that we test, I should only see one or two results at every area. When I have a mixture, what I'm seeing is more than two results at multiple areas in that DNA profile. So mixture just means there's more than one person's DNA present in that item.
Attorney Smircic (02:06:57):
So on this particular item, the penile swab, you had essentially three DNA profiles or three people on that swab?
Kristin Meyer (02:07:06):
Yes. I interpreted that mixture profile to contain three individuals.
Attorney Smircic (02:07:10):
Can you explain major versus minor contributors?
Kristin Meyer (02:07:14):
Sure. All that means is that some contributor, one of the contributor's DNA is present in excess than somebody else's in that profile. So if there's a larger proportion of an individual's DNA present compared to anybody else in that profile.
Attorney Smircic (02:07:28):
And you were able to determine one of those profiles was David Prevatte?
Kristin Meyer (02:07:36):
So because it was the nature of the sample is what we consider an intimate item, it's a swab from his penis, it's assumed that the owner of the penis would be in that item. So that's just standard practice to use to help determine the remainder of that mixture profile where I can account for Mr. Prevatte's profile in that item, then I can... It helps me further interpret the remaining profile in that mixture.
Attorney Smircic (02:08:05):
And back when you did this testing in 2017, 2018, you weren't able to determine the other two profiles on the penis swab at that time?
Kristin Meyer (02:08:15):
At that time, the DNA standards that I have, none of them matched the major contributor profile in that item.
Attorney Smircic (02:08:23):
And the other minor profile was David Prevatte, or assumed to be David Prevatte?
Kristin Meyer (02:08:29):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:08:29):
And the other minor profile was unable to be interpreted?
Kristin Meyer (02:08:32):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (02:08:35):
Why would it be unable to be interpreted?
Kristin Meyer (02:08:39):
So when I say that something is inconclusive due to insufficient quantity and/or quality of recovered DNA, it means exactly that. Either there's so too many people in that particular part of the DNA profile, that interpretation becomes dangerous, we don't do that, or there's so little DNA that you run the risk of not seeing DNA that's recovered because it's so low that you don't have the full contributor's profile present, so we don't interpret that.
Attorney Smircic (02:09:24):
Ms. Meyer, did you produce a lab report summarizing your findings that you've just testified to?
Kristin Meyer (02:09:35):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (02:09:37):
May I approach?
Judge (02:09:37):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (02:10:00):
Ms. Meyer, I'm showing you what I've marked as state's 106, which is a three-page document. Do you recognize that?
Kristin Meyer (02:10:13):
Yes, ma'am. I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:10:14):
And what is it?
Kristin Meyer (02:10:15):
It appears to be a copy of my report for my first case record.
Attorney Smircic (02:10:19):
And your first case record was actually a lab case record three, is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (02:10:23):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (02:10:25):
Is your signature at the bottom of this report?
Kristin Meyer (02:10:27):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:10:27):
Everything appear to be accurate and unchanged from when you produced it?
Kristin Meyer (02:10:31):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (02:10:32):
Judge, the state would move to enter state's 106 into evidence.
Judge (02:10:36):
Any objection?
Mr. Bailiff (02:10:37):
No, sir.
Judge (02:10:37):
State's Exhibit 106 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Smircic (02:10:43):
Judge, may I publish?
Judge (02:10:44):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (02:10:45):
Ms. Meyer, this is the first page of your lab report?
Kristin Meyer (02:10:48):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:10:49):
It indicates that you produced this report on January 11th, 2018?
Kristin Meyer (02:10:54):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:10:54):
Lists the items you received?
Kristin Meyer (02:10:57):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:10:57):
Your signature at the bottom here?
Kristin Meyer (02:10:59):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:11:00):
And again, the following pages would summarize what you just testified to, is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (02:11:04):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:11:14):
Ms. Meyer, let's talk about some additional testing you did in this case. Did you create a second lab report known to the lab as case record five?
Kristin Meyer (02:11:30):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (02:11:33):
What items of evidence did you test in this lab report?
Kristin Meyer (02:11:38):
In this lab report, I tested items identified in the laboratory as items 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 10-1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, as well as items 21, 22, 23, and 24.
Attorney Smircic (02:12:06):
And Judge, may I approach?
Judge (02:12:07):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (02:12:25):
Ms. Meyer, I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as state's 99, 100, and 101. Are you able to identify what those items are?
Kristin Meyer (02:12:39):
Yes, I can.
Attorney Smircic (02:12:40):
What are they?
Kristin Meyer (02:12:42):
These are laboratory items 91, 92, and 93, which were identified as cutting from boxer shorts.
Attorney Smircic (02:12:52):
And those were items you tested in this lab record?
Kristin Meyer (02:12:55):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:12:57):
I'm going to go ahead and show you what's been marked as and admitted as state's 102. Do you recognize that item?
Kristin Meyer (02:13:05):
Yes, ma'am. I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:13:06):
What is that?
Kristin Meyer (02:13:07):
This is identified as laboratory item 10-1, which was the swabbing from red earbuds.
Attorney Smircic (02:13:14):
Okay. Again, another item you tested?
Kristin Meyer (02:13:15):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:13:24):
I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as state's 44. Be careful it's open at the top here. Do you recognize that item?
Kristin Meyer (02:13:35):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:13:36):
What is it?
Kristin Meyer (02:13:38):
State's Exhibit 44, I recognize as laboratory item 11, which was described as a phone charger with cord.
Attorney Smircic (02:13:51):
I'm going to show you what's been already admitted as state's 45. Do you recognize that item?
Kristin Meyer (02:14:00):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:14:01):
What is it?
Kristin Meyer (02:14:02):
State's Exhibit 45 is identified as laboratory item 12, which was described as an LG phone charging cord.
Attorney Smircic (02:14:14):
I'm showing you what's already been admitted as state's Exhibit 46. Do you recognize that item?
Kristin Meyer (02:14:21):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:14:22):
What is it?
Kristin Meyer (02:14:23):
State's Exhibit 46 is identified as laboratory item 13, which was described as a RadioShack phone charger.
Attorney Smircic (02:14:35):
I'm showing you what's been marked and admitted as state's Exhibit 57. Do you recognize that?
Kristin Meyer (02:14:45):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:14:46):
What is it?
Kristin Meyer (02:14:47):
State's Exhibit 57, I recognize as laboratory item 18, which was described as one set of Christmas lights with cord.
Attorney Smircic (02:14:58):
I'm just going to show you this because It's opened up. This is what's been admitted as state's 48. Do you recognize that item?
Kristin Meyer (02:15:05):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:15:06):
What is that?
Kristin Meyer (02:15:08):
That I recognize as laboratory item 19, which was identified as a hot glue gun with cord.
Attorney Smircic (02:15:31):
Ms. Meyer, I'm going to show you what's been marked as state's 47. Do you recognize that item?
Kristin Meyer (02:15:44):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:15:44):
What is that?
Kristin Meyer (02:15:46):
I recognize that as laboratory item 14, which was a Dirt Devil vacuum cleaner with cord.
Attorney Smircic (02:16:00):
Ms. Meyer, I'm showing you what's already been admitted as state's 64, and I'm going to show you the contents of state's 64, what's already been admitted as state's 64A. Do you recognize that?
Kristin Meyer (02:16:18):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:16:19):
What is that?
Kristin Meyer (02:16:20):
I recognize this as laboratory item 21, which was identified as known standard cheek swabs from Jamie P. Sykes.
Attorney Smircic (02:16:29):
Are these cheek swabs what you used to generate that person's DNA profile?
Kristin Meyer (02:16:34):
Yes, to use it for potential comparisons to evidence profiles.
Attorney Smircic (02:16:39):
And you received these from law enforcement, correct?
Kristin Meyer (02:16:41):
They were submitted by law enforcement, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:16:45):
I'm showing you what's been already admitted as 64B. Do you recognize that item?
Kristin Meyer (02:16:50):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:16:51):
What is it?
Kristin Meyer (02:16:53):
I recognize this as laboratory item 22, which was identified as buccal swabs from Haley Fawcett.
Attorney Smircic (02:17:00):
These are, again, DNA swabs?
Kristin Meyer (02:17:02):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:17:06):
I'm showing you what's been already admitted as state's 64C. Do you recognize that?
Kristin Meyer (02:17:12):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:17:13):
What is it?
Kristin Meyer (02:17:15):
I recognize this as laboratory item 23, which was identified as cheek swabs from Melissa Brown.
Attorney Smircic (02:17:23):
I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as state's 64D. Is this more swabs, DNA swabs?
Kristin Meyer (02:17:33):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:17:34):
And from who?
Kristin Meyer (02:17:36):
This item is laboratory item 24, which was identified as known cheek swabs from Michael Austin Hall.
Attorney Smircic (02:17:55):
And Ms. Meyer, you tested these items as well as some of the other items you've already identified in this next lab report?
Kristin Meyer (02:18:02):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (02:18:06):
Let's talk about items four, five, and six, which you previously identified as the plastic nozzle from the whipped cream can, nail scrapings from David Prevatte and a penile swab from David Prevatte. What were you doing in this lab report with those items?
Kristin Meyer (02:18:27):
So I already generated DNA profiles from those items in my first case record, so I've already made interpretations in terms of whether I can interpret the profiles or not or what parts of the profile I could offer interpretations on. So with this submission, I'm now taking the known DNA profiles that I obtained from the four additional standards and comparing to the evidence profiles I generated in the first case record.
Attorney Smircic (02:18:53):
So essentially with four, five, and six that you already had, you're now using the DNA profiles of Jamie Sykes, Haley Fawcett, Melissa Brown, and Michael Hall to compare to those to any interpretable DNA profiles you had already obtained?
Kristin Meyer (02:19:09):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:19:10):
And just to be clear, you can only compare those two profiles you were able to generate, not DNA profiles that didn't have a sufficient quantity, is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (02:19:20):
Well, if there was not a sufficient quantity, it didn't move forward with the amplification process. But if I did generate a profile for an item, but there's parts of it that I'm not able to interpret, then I wouldn't be making any additional interpretations at this point either.
Attorney Smircic (02:19:37):
So even though in items four and five, the plastic nozzle from the whipped cream can and the nail scrapings from David Prevatte, even though you had already matched those to David Prevatte, because you got new DNA samples and profiles, you still have to run a comparison against those, is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (02:19:58):
Yes, for completeness, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:20:00):
So what happened when you did that with items four and five?
Kristin Meyer (02:20:02):
So...
Attorney Smircic (02:20:00):
So, what happened when you did that with items four and five?
Kristin Meyer (02:20:03):
So, a DNA profile was obtained from the swabbing from the nasal and the nail scrapings from David Prevatte, and the DNA profiles obtained from Jamie Sykes, Haley Fawcett, Melissa Brown, and Michael Hall are excluded as contributors to that profile.
Attorney Smircic (02:20:20):
So, in your first lab report, when you said those profiles from those items were matching to David Prevatte, nothing changed about that?
Kristin Meyer (02:20:29):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (02:20:31):
Let's talk about item six, the penile swab. What happened when you used these additional DNA profiles, and what were the results of your test of the penile swab?
Kristin Meyer (02:20:46):
So, again, for item six, the DNA profile obtained from the penile swab from David Prevatte is consistent with a mixture of three contributors, which is why I had said, in my first report, the major contributor profile matches the DNA profile from Haley Fawcett. The DNA profiles obtained from Jamie Sykes, Melissa Brown, and Michael Hall are excluded as contributors to the major DNA profile.
Attorney Smircic (02:21:14):
So, now you've looked at item six, and you've determined how many DNA profiles were on the penis swab?
Kristin Meyer (02:21:21):
I am interpreting it as three contributors, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:21:24):
And now you've determined two of those contributors. Is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (02:21:27):
That would be an accurate assessment, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:21:29):
Who are those two contributors?
Kristin Meyer (02:21:31):
I have identified that both Haley Fawcett and David Prevatte, their DNA profiles cannot be excluded from that item.
Attorney Smircic (02:21:42):
So, there's one more profile?
Kristin Meyer (02:21:45):
Part of a third... Yeah. Yes. A third profile, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:21:48):
Excuse me, let me put it this way. There's a third contributor in that penis swab, right?
Kristin Meyer (02:21:52):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:21:55):
Can you explain why the third contributor cannot move on for testing?
Kristin Meyer (02:22:00):
Because I've already determined that that portion of the mixture is not subject to interpretation.
Attorney Smircic (02:22:06):
And why is that?
Kristin Meyer (02:22:07):
Because there was insufficient quantity or quality of the recovered DNA.
Attorney Smircic (02:22:10):
Okay, Ms. Meyer, let's turn to 9-1, which was a cutting from the boxer shorts. What were your results for the DNA analysis of that?
Kristin Meyer (02:22:34):
The DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the boxer shorts, which was lab item 9-1, is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. The major contributor profile is consistent with the DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte. The DNA profiles obtained from Dale Hunt, Paitin Fields, Jamie Sykes, Haley Fawcett, Melissa Brown, and Michael Hall are excluded as contributors to the major profile. The minor components of this mixture are inconclusive due to complexity and/or insufficient quality of recovered DNA.
Attorney Smircic (02:23:07):
So, for this cutting from the boxer shorts, is there a associated statistic with your results?
Kristin Meyer (02:23:16):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:23:16):
What is that?
Kristin Meyer (02:23:18):
The probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with a DNA profile that is consistent with the major DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the boxer shorts, Laboratory item 9-1, is approximately one in 445 octillion in the Caucasian population, one in 83.3 decillion in the African American population, and one in 297 octillion in the Hispanic population, using the population databases generated by NIST.
Attorney Smircic (02:23:48):
And so, on this cutting from the boxer shorts, you had four contributors, but you only had enough DNA from one of those to interpret. Is that right?
Kristin Meyer (02:24:00):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:24:01):
But you did interpret that as being from David Prevatte?
Kristin Meyer (02:24:07):
I interpret that as matching David Prevatte's known profile.
Attorney Smircic (02:24:08):
And Ms. Meyer, can you explain, you said the minor components of this mixture are inconclusive due to complexity or insufficient DNA. What exactly does that mean?
Kristin Meyer (02:24:28):
That means that the minor component has potential DNA information missing because it's so low level, there's so little of it, or because there's so much overlap with multiple people being present, I cannot distinguish one profile from another.
Attorney Smircic (02:24:51):
I want to look at now your lab item 9-2, which is another cutting from the boxer shorts, as well as item 11, which is a TR-10 phone charger. Did you test these items for DNA analysis?
Kristin Meyer (02:25:09):
Yes, I did.
Attorney Smircic (02:25:10):
Judge, may I publish State's 105?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:25:13):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (02:25:26):
And Ms. Meyer, you had already received the cuttings from the boxer shorts from Ms. Chowdhury. Is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (02:25:32):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:25:35):
I'm publishing page 224 of your case record five, your second lab report. Is this lab item 11 the TR-10 phone charger?
Kristin Meyer (02:25:50):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:25:52):
And where exactly did you swab on this charger?
Kristin Meyer (02:25:55):
The entire length of the cord.
Attorney Smircic (02:25:59):
And how do you take DNA swabs?
Kristin Meyer (02:26:01):
I take a sterile swab and put a little bit of sterile water on it, and then just swab the area that I want to test for DNA.
Attorney Smircic (02:26:12):
And with the 9-2 cutting and this phone charger, what were the results of your DNA analysis?
Kristin Meyer (02:26:19):
The DNA profiles obtained from the cutting from the boxer shorts, which is lab item 9-2, and the swabbing of the phone charger, which is lab item 11, are being interpreted as mixtures of two contributors. The major contributor profiles match the DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte, and the DNA profiles from Dale Hunt, Paitin Fields, Jamie Sykes, Haley Fawcett, Melissa Brown, and Michael Hall are excluded as contributors to the major profile. The minor components of these mixtures are inconclusive due to complexity and/or insufficient quality of recovered DNA.
Attorney Smircic (02:26:54):
And is there an associated statistic you have with those results?
Kristin Meyer (02:26:59):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (02:27:01):
What is that?
Kristin Meyer (02:27:02):
The probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with a DNA profile that matches the major DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the boxer shorts and the swabbing from the phone charger cord is approximately one in 814 octillion in the Caucasian population, one in 249 decillion in the African American population, and one in 599 octillion in the Hispanic population, using the population databases generated by NIST.
Attorney Smircic (02:27:35):
And so, on 9-2, the cutting from the boxers and 11, the TR-10 phone charging cord, you had two contributors?
Kristin Meyer (02:27:42):
That's how I interpreted the profiles, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:27:44):
And one of those contributors could be interpreted as David Prevatte, and another was unable to be interpreted. Is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (02:27:51):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (02:27:58):
I want to turn your attention to 9-3, which is a cutting from the boxer shorts, 12, an LG phone charging cord, 13, a RadioShack phone charger, 14, a Dirt Devil vacuum with a cord, and 18, which is the Christmas lights. Did you test these items for DNA analysis?
Kristin Meyer (02:28:30):
Yes, I did.
Attorney Smircic (02:28:34):
And what were the results?
Kristin Meyer (02:28:36):
The DNA profiles obtained from the cutting from the boxer shorts and the swabbings from the LG phone charging cord, the RadioShack phone charger, the Dirt Devil vacuum cleaner, and the Christmas lights are all inconclusive due to complexity or insufficient quality of recovered DNA.
Attorney Smircic (02:28:53):
So, what does essentially that mean?
Kristin Meyer (02:28:55):
That means I could not interpret the profiles.
Attorney Smircic (02:29:06):
And Ms. Meyer, did you document where you swabbed these cords in your report?
Kristin Meyer (02:29:12):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:29:12):
Judge, may I republish State's 105?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:29:15):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (02:29:24):
I'm republishing Page 225 of your lab packet. Is that item 12 the LG phone charging cord?
Kristin Meyer (02:29:35):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:29:36):
And where would you swab on this cord?
Kristin Meyer (02:29:38):
The cord part. I did not swab the ends.
Attorney Smircic (02:29:45):
Okay. Going to Page 226 of your lab packet, is that item 13?
Kristin Meyer (02:29:50):
Yes, ma'am.
Attorney Smircic (02:29:51):
Which is the RadioShack phone charger?
Kristin Meyer (02:29:54):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:29:55):
And what area of this did you swab?
Kristin Meyer (02:29:58):
Again, same as the others. It's just the cord portion that I swabbed for DNA. I didn't swab the plug or the end.
Attorney Smircic (02:30:06):
And you've noted that in here as well?
Kristin Meyer (02:30:08):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:30:11):
Page 227 of your lab packet. Is that item 14, the Dirt Devil vacuum?
Kristin Meyer (02:30:18):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:30:19):
What did you swab on this?
Kristin Meyer (02:30:20):
Just the cord portion.
Attorney Smircic (02:30:23):
And you swabbed the entire length of the cord?
Kristin Meyer (02:30:26):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:30:31):
Looking at Page 228 of your lab packet, does that reflect item 18, the Christmas lights?
Kristin Meyer (02:30:39):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:30:40):
And what did you swab on here?
Kristin Meyer (02:30:45):
So, for this item, I did my best to swab just the cord portion. So, the actual lights and the plug, I did not swab.
Attorney Smircic (02:31:10):
I want to turn your attention to item 10-1, which is the swabbing from the red earbuds. Did Ms. Chowdhury at the lab actually do that swabbing?
Kristin Meyer (02:31:22):
Yes, she made the actual swabbing.
Attorney Smircic (02:31:24):
But you're the one who tested it?
Kristin Meyer (02:31:26):
For DNA, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:31:28):
What were the results of your DNA analysis for item 10-1?
Kristin Meyer (02:31:32):
The DNA profile obtained from the swabbing of the earbuds, which is Laboratory item 10-1, is being interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. The major contributor profile matches the DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte. The DNA profiles from Dale Hunt, Paitin Fields, Jamie Sykes, Haley Fawcett, Melissa Brown, and Michael Hall are excluded as contributors to the major profile. The minor components of this mixture are inconclusive due to complexity and/or insufficient quality of recovered DNA.
Attorney Smircic (02:32:04):
So, on these red earbuds, you had three contributors?
Kristin Meyer (02:32:07):
That was my interpretation, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:32:09):
And you were able to interpret one of them as being David Prevatte?
Kristin Meyer (02:32:13):
The major profile in this mixture matched the DNA profile from David Prevatte.
Attorney Smircic (02:32:19):
Was there an associated statistic?
Kristin Meyer (02:32:21):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:32:21):
What was that?
Kristin Meyer (02:32:23):
The probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with a DNA profile that matches the major DNA profile obtained from the swabbing of the earbuds is approximately one in 814 octillion in the Caucasian population, one in 249 decillion in the African American population, and one in 599 octillion in the Hispanic population, using the population databases generated by NIST.
Attorney Smircic (02:32:54):
Ms. Meyer, did you also perform DNA analysis on item 19, a hot glue gun with cord?
Kristin Meyer (02:33:02):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:33:02):
May I republish State's 105?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:33:11):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (02:33:20):
And looking at Page 229 of your lab packet, where did you swab on this?
Kristin Meyer (02:33:26):
Just the cord, not the plug or the actual glue gun itself.
Attorney Smircic (02:33:31):
And what were the results of your testing?
Kristin Meyer (02:33:34):
The DNA profile obtained from the swabbing of the hot glue gun cord is being interpreted as a mixture of at least four contributors. The major profile is from an unknown contributor. The DNA profiles from David Prevatte, Dale Hunt, Paitin Fields, Jamie Sykes, and Haley Fawcett, Melissa Brown, and Michael Hall are all excluded as contributors to that major profile. The minor components of this mixture are inconclusive due to complexity and/or insufficient quality of recovered DNA.
Attorney Smircic (02:34:02):
So, you had at least four contributors on this cord, but you weren't able to interpret some of those contributors. Is that right?
Kristin Meyer (02:34:14):
I was only able to interpret a single major contributor profile on that item.
Attorney Smircic (02:34:20):
And it didn't match any of the DNA samples you had?
Kristin Meyer (02:34:22):
That I had received, no.
Attorney Smircic (02:34:29):
Did you create a report summarizing your findings in what you just testified to?
Kristin Meyer (02:34:34):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:34:45):
May I approach?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:34:46):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (02:34:52):
Ms. Meyer, I'm showing you what I've marked as State's 107, which is a four-page document. Do you recognize that?
Kristin Meyer (02:35:03):
Yes, I do.
Attorney Smircic (02:35:05):
What is it?
Kristin Meyer (02:35:06):
State's Exhibit 107 is a copy of the second laboratory report that I prepared in this case, which is case record five.
Attorney Smircic (02:35:13):
And does it reflect what you just testified to to the jury?
Kristin Meyer (02:35:16):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:35:17):
Any changes, modifications?
Kristin Meyer (02:35:19):
No.
Attorney Smircic (02:35:20):
And it's as you produced it back on April 25th of 2018?
Kristin Meyer (02:35:26):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:35:26):
Your signature's at the bottom?
Kristin Meyer (02:35:27):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (02:35:28):
Judge, the State would move to admit State's 107 into evidence.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:35:31):
Any objection?
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:35:32):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:35:33):
State's Exhibit 107 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Smircic (02:35:46):
And Judge, may I publish State's 107?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:35:55):
You may.
Attorney Smircic (02:36:04):
And once again, Ms. Meyer, this report reflects the date of your report, April 25th of 2018, at the top?
Kristin Meyer (02:36:12):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:36:13):
And your lab number?
Kristin Meyer (02:36:16):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:36:17):
And this was case record five. Is that correct?
Kristin Meyer (02:36:19):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:36:20):
Again, it reflects the items of evidence you received in this case?
Kristin Meyer (02:36:26):
As well as it re-lists items previously analyzed.
Attorney Smircic (02:36:29):
And then, in the following pages, the results you just summarized?
Kristin Meyer (02:36:32):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:36:43):
Ms. Meyer, you tested these items back in 2018?
Kristin Meyer (02:36:48):
2017, 2018, yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:36:51):
And were you using a program at the time to do that?
Kristin Meyer (02:36:57):
For complex mixture analysis, we did have a validated program that basically is a fancy calculator that saves us time so that I don't have to do all the calculations by hand.
Attorney Smircic (02:37:09):
And what was that program called?
Kristin Meyer (02:37:10):
It was called ArmedXpert.
Attorney Smircic (02:37:20):
Nothing further, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:37:20):
Cross-examination?
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:37:28):
Yes.
(02:37:28)
Ms. Meyer, out of all of the items that you tested for DNA, did you find Paitin Fields' DNA profile on any of them?
Kristin Meyer (02:37:41):
Not on anything that I was able to interpret, no.
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:37:53):
And just so we understand, a mixture can result between two people handling something, like with touch DNA? Can you get a mixture off of that?
Kristin Meyer (02:38:08):
Yes, that's possible.
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:38:10):
If you have, for example, bodily fluids from one person found in another, is that a mixture?
Kristin Meyer (02:38:17):
That could potentially yield a mixture, yes.
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:38:19):
You didn't have any of those things for Paitin Fields and David for that, where you could identify Paitin Fields as a contributor?
Kristin Meyer (02:38:31):
I did not. I did not make any associations with Paitin Fields' known DNA profile in anything that I was able to interpret in my case records.
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:38:41):
Thank you.
(02:38:41)
I don't have any other questions.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:38:43):
Redirect?
Attorney Smircic (02:38:43):
Briefly, Judge.
(02:38:45)
Ms. Meyer, you had several contributors that you were unable to interpret. Is that right?
Kristin Meyer (02:38:53):
Yes.
Attorney Smircic (02:38:54):
So, it's possible Paitin Fields or the other standards you've had could have been those contributors. Is that right?
Kristin Meyer (02:39:03):
They could be contributors or they could have been excluded. I can't interpret the profile, so either way.
Attorney Smircic (02:39:09):
So, there's no way for you to know on the uninterpretable contributors who that is?
Kristin Meyer (02:39:15):
Correct.
Attorney Smircic (02:39:18):
And Mr. Britt talked to you about touch DNA, bodily fluids. Are all of those, you talked about this in the beginning, carriers of DNA?
Kristin Meyer (02:39:29):
Yes, they can all yield DNA.
Attorney Smircic (02:39:32):
So, can you name the things that can potentially have DNA in them and be carriers of DNA?
Kristin Meyer (02:39:38):
Any body fluid can potentially have DNA in it. Things such as blood, semen, saliva are what we always consider the best sources of potential DNA. Things from vomit, urine, skin cells, which is literally just skin cells coming off your body that you shed naturally, those can yield DNA. But that's not always a guarantee, and the quantity that you recover is not as robust as if you had a blood stain.
Attorney Smircic (02:40:11):
So, some things, like bodily fluids, are better carriers of DNA?
Kristin Meyer (02:40:17):
Generally, they yield better DNA results, better quantity of DNA.
Attorney Smircic (02:40:20):
And what were those items you named or type of bodily fluids that were the best source of DNA?
Kristin Meyer (02:40:28):
Blood, semen, saliva are usually the best.
Attorney Smircic (02:40:34):
Nothing further, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:40:35):
Recross?
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:40:36):
In any of the materials you received from the Pender County Sheriff's Office, did you receive any information that Paitin Fields had urinated on David en route to the hospital?
Kristin Meyer (02:40:49):
I don't believe I had any information like that, no.
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:40:52):
Thank you.
(02:40:52)
I don't have any other questions.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:40:53):
Is this witness subject to recall?
Attorney Smircic (02:40:56):
No, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:40:56):
On behalf of the defense?
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:40:57):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:40:57):
All right, ma'am. At this time, you're released from your obligations of your subpoena. You may step down. You're free to go. Thank you.
(02:41:18)
State, you may call your next witness.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:41:19):
State would call Shane Wilcox.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:41:26):
All right, sir, if you can make your way around to the witness stand, please. Sir, if you can place your left hand on the Bible, raise your right hand.
Court Clerk (02:41:37):
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give in court today will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Shane Wilcox (02:41:42):
I do.
Court Clerk (02:41:42):
Thank you. You may be seated.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:41:49):
Sir, as you testify, please make sure to speak loudly and clearly in the microphone. Please make sure all of your answers are out loud, and please wait for the attorneys to be done with their questions before you give a response. Can you do that?
Shane Wilcox (02:41:58):
I can.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:41:59):
All right. Thank you.
(02:42:00)
State, you may proceed.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:42:01):
Mr. Wilcox, can you state your name and occupation for the jury, please?
Shane Wilcox (02:42:04):
My name is Shane Wilcox. I'm a forensic scientist with the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:42:09):
Can you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
Shane Wilcox (02:42:11):
S-H-A-N-E W-I-L-C-O-X.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:42:16):
How long have you been with the State Crime Lab?
Shane Wilcox (02:42:18):
Since August of 2015. So, a little over 11 years.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:42:22):
Prior to joining the State Crime Lab, were you employed in any other lab?
Shane Wilcox (02:42:26):
Yes. I worked in a medical diagnostics laboratory in Connecticut for roughly two years.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:42:31):
And let's go back to your education. Prior to joining any lab, did you end up getting a degree so you could perform laboratory tests?
Shane Wilcox (02:42:43):
I have bachelor's degrees in forensic science and biology, along with a minor in chemistry from the University of New Haven, as well as a master's degree in genetics from University of Connecticut.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:42:54):
When you joined the State Crime Lab, what were your duties and responsibilities when you first joined?
Shane Wilcox (02:43:01):
When I first joined, it was training.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:43:03):
And how long do you train for at the State Crime Lab?
Shane Wilcox (02:43:07):
I underwent two separate training programs. The first one was body fluid analysis, and it took about a year, and then I worked cases for about a year for body fluid only. I then underwent DNA training, which again took about a year. And then after that, I worked both body fluid and DNA cases.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:43:23):
Is that common at the State Crime Lab that you have to go through a period of training before you can actually work cases?
Shane Wilcox (02:43:29):
Yes, absolutely.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:43:30):
And was it typical back when you did it a year at a time, or?
Shane Wilcox (02:43:35):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:43:35):
Is that different than it is now?
Shane Wilcox (02:43:37):
We have tried to speed it up a little bit, but it's still close to a year.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:43:41):
So, you did a year casework, year casework. So, your first four years kind of learning the job. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (02:43:49):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:43:49):
I'm going to take you back to 2017. What were your duties and responsibilities in 2017?
Shane Wilcox (02:43:59):
I analyzed items of evidence for the presence of body fluid and DNA, generated DNA profiles, made comparisons to any question profiles to any known standards, wrote reports of those findings, and testified in court when needed.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:44:11):
And what are your current duties and responsibilities?
Shane Wilcox (02:44:16):
Those same things, as well as some more quality control things around the lab.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:44:21):
So, from 2017 to the present, have you been doing body fluid analysis and DNA analysis?
Shane Wilcox (02:44:26):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:44:28):
And what's your current job title?
Shane Wilcox (02:44:31):
Forensic Scientist III.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:44:33):
Describe to the jury what forensic scientist numbers are at the State Crime Lab?
Shane Wilcox (02:44:38):
So, when you're first hired at the base level, it's a one, and then you can be promoted to a two, getting more duties, and then three is currently the highest level until you reach supervisor level.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:44:50):
And have you ever testified in court before?
Shane Wilcox (02:44:53):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:44:54):
For what types of analysis?
Shane Wilcox (02:44:56):
Body fluid and DNA analysis.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:44:58):
Approximately how many times?
Shane Wilcox (02:44:59):
27 times.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:45:01):
And is that both federal and state court?
Shane Wilcox (02:45:03):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:45:05):
Can you briefly explain... You've been in the courtroom for Ms. Chowdhury and Ms. Meyer. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (02:45:12):
I have.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:45:12):
And can you briefly explain what DNA is?
Shane Wilcox (02:45:15):
So, DNA is a molecule found in all living things. It's basically the blueprint for life, contains all the instructions for our bodies to function, as well as what we look like. You get half from your mom, half from your dad. The DNA throughout your body is the same, and remains the same throughout your life. And with the technology I use, no two people have been shown to have the same DNA profile, except for identical twins.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:45:36):
And tell us how you perform DNA analysis on specimens and/or evidence.
Shane Wilcox (02:45:47):
So, what you have previously heard, the first step is extraction. I'm going to take a small cutting of the item, put it into a tube, add chemicals and heat, that breaks open the cells to release the DNA. I can then run that sample on an instrument to separate the DNA from all the other components that I don't want.
(02:46:02)
The next step is quantitation. And in that step, I'm running that sample on an instrument to determine roughly how much DNA is there. If I can continue with the process, the next step is amplification, where I'm targeting specific areas of the DNA that differ between individuals.
(02:46:18)
And finally, I'm separating that profile or that DNA out on an instrument to develop a profile. The result is a graph with a series of peaks, and those peaks are assigned numbers, and those numbers make up the DNA profile that I compare.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:46:31):
And do you still do body fluid identification?
Shane Wilcox (02:46:35):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:46:35):
And how do you perform body fluid identification?
Shane Wilcox (02:46:39):
It depends on the type of test. In this case, the two tests that I used was the Kastle-Meyer test for blood and the acid phosphatase test for semen. They work pretty similarly. You're basically taking a small sample of the item, adding a colorless chemical to it, and looking for a color change.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:47:00):
That's pretty much what Ms. Chowdhury said this morning. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (02:47:04):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:47:05):
Those tests have remained the same throughout the years?
Shane Wilcox (02:47:07):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:47:09):
How about DNA? Is DNA analysis, and the way you perform DNA analysis, has it stayed the same throughout the years you've been at the State Crime Lab?
Shane Wilcox (02:47:17):
The same base process has remained the same, but we have improved our technology over time.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:47:23):
How so?
Shane Wilcox (02:47:25):
We currently use different types of extractions than we even did in this time. We also have a type of mixture analysis software that was not used initially with this case.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:47:36):
And you've heard Ms. Meyer talk about the technology that she used back when she was looking at case records three and five. You obviously did some DNA analysis in this case. Was it different than what Ms. Meyer did in case record three and five?
Shane Wilcox (02:47:58):
The analysis software was different. So, she used a program called ArmedXpert. At the time that I worked this case, I used a program called STRmix. The amplification kit that she used was the same kit that I used in my analysis.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:48:12):
And is that common for the State Crime Lab to update their software and/or techniques, especially for DNA?
Shane Wilcox (02:48:21):
Yes. We're trying to stay modern, have the best techniques possible.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:48:25):
At this time... Well, let me ask you this. During the course of your training... You've had training in forensic science, biology, chemistry, and genetics. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (02:48:35):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:48:36):
During the course of your training and education, have you been instructed on carriers of DNA, meaning what types of bodily fluids carry DNA?
Shane Wilcox (02:48:53):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:48:54):
How about how DNA reacts to environmental pressures?
Shane Wilcox (02:49:01):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:49:02):
And explain to the jury where you find DNA in some carriers.
Shane Wilcox (02:49:13):
You can find DNA in any body fluid that contains nucleated cells. So, the best samples are, you heard previously, blood, semen, saliva. It's also possible to have DNA in other body fluids and also skin cells, just shedding your skin cells on a surface. And then you can potentially develop a DNA profile from that.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:49:33):
You've heard from Ms. Meyer just moments ago, she talked about sources and best sources of DNA. Would you agree or disagree with her about the best sources is blood, semen, and saliva?
Shane Wilcox (02:49:44):
I agree with her.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:49:45):
And is urine a good source of DNA?
Shane Wilcox (02:49:50):
It's not the best, but again, it can contain nucleated cells and therefore can contain DNA.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:49:56):
And why is urine not as good as blood semen or saliva?
Shane Wilcox (02:50:01):
The cells found in urine, in general, are coming from the lining of the urethra and the internal body as it's coming out. Something like blood has white blood cells in it, which can potentially be a lot of DNA. Urine just does not have as much. It's a waste fluid, so it's not as good.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:50:23):
And how about skin cells... I think everybody's referred to skin cells as epithelial cells. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (02:50:31):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:50:35):
Is that a good source of DNA?
Shane Wilcox (02:50:37):
It can be. Everyone is different. It depends on how long you touched an item. It's highly dependent on the individual, the surface texture of that item, and the amount of time that the item was touched.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:50:48):
Okay. Let's talk about DNA and interactions with the environment. You've been trained on that, both education, and in the course of your continuing education. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (02:50:56):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:50:57):
And can you talk about some of the environmental interactions with DNA?
Shane Wilcox (02:51:03):
So, the best storage for DNA is a cool, dry place. When you introduce heat, fire, sun, UV rays, bacteria, that can break down the DNA and make it more difficult to generate a full DNA profile.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:51:17):
What about things like soap, water, and other environmental-
Shane Wilcox (02:51:24):
With that, you're potentially looking at washing away DNA from a surface if you're applying any sort of liquid.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:51:30):
At this time, Judge, I would tender Mr. Wilcox in the area of DNA and DNA analysis and body fluid identification.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:51:57):
That was DNA, DNA analysis, and body fluid identification?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:51:57):
Yes, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:51:58):
Any objection?
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:51:59):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:52:00):
Witness will be qualified as an expert in the fields of DNA, DNA analysis, and body fluid identification.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:52:07):
Thank you, Your Honor.
(02:52:09)
Now, I'm going to take you to your job or your duties in regards to this case. Were you asked to perform DNA analysis and body fluid analysis on this case, or in this case?
Shane Wilcox (02:52:29):
I was.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:52:30):
And how many lab records did you work on?
Shane Wilcox (02:52:34):
Five.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:52:35):
And what lab case records did you work on?
Shane Wilcox (02:52:41):
Case record eight, nine, 10, 11, and 12.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:52:46):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:52:46):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:53:03):
I'm going to show you first State's Exhibit 108 for identification purposes. Do you recognize 108?
Shane Wilcox (02:53:09):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:53:09):
What is 108?
Shane Wilcox (02:53:10):
State's 108 is a copy of my CV.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:53:13):
Fairly and accurately depict your education, your trainings, and times you've testified?
Shane Wilcox (02:53:18):
It does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:53:19):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 108, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:53:21):
Any objection?
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:53:23):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:53:23):
State's Exhibit 108 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:53:26):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 109 for identification purposes. Do you recognize State's Exhibit 109?
Shane Wilcox (02:53:32):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:53:33):
And what is 109?
Shane Wilcox (02:53:34):
State's 109 is a CD that contains the case records that I worked on in this case.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:53:38):
So, that would be case record eight, nine, 10, 11, and 12. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (02:53:45):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:53:45):
And those are the digital copies of your lab reports?
Shane Wilcox (02:53:51):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:53:52):
Does it also include your bench notes for your full lab report?
Shane Wilcox (02:53:56):
The full lab report is all of the notes. This summary lab report is the couple pages in the front of it.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:54:04):
Perfect. After reviewing this State's Exhibit 109, did it contain the complete records for 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12?
Shane Wilcox (02:54:12):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:54:13):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 109.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:54:15):
Any objection?
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt III (02:54:16):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:54:17):
State's Exhibit 109 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (02:54:34):
Judge, at this time, we have nine minutes to our normal break before starting. I would not like to cut a lab report in half before lunch, Judge. Can we take a break?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:54:48):
All right.
(02:54:48)
Members of the jury, go ahead and close up your notebooks. As we break for lunch, please remember not to have any conversation amongst yourselves regarding this case. Do not allow anyone else to discuss-
Your Honor (02:55:00):
... regarding this case. Do not allow anyone else to discuss this case in your presence. Do not discuss this case with anybody else, including friends, family members, or coworkers. Do not have any contact with any of the parties, attorneys, or witnesses. Do not conduct any independent investigation or inquiry, and do not post online on any social media sites. We'll go ahead and excuse you. We'll reconvene at 2:00 PM.
Mr. Bailiff (02:55:26):
Thank you, Your Honor. Make sure you leave your closed notebooks in your chair. When ready, front row and back this way, please. Jury's exited the courtroom.
Your Honor (02:56:04):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has exited the courtroom. Mr. Wilcox, you may step down. Is there anything that we need to discuss on behalf of the state?
Speaker 4 (02:56:22):
No, Your Honor.
Your Honor (02:56:23):
On behalf of the defense?
Speaker 5 (02:56:26):
No, sir.
Your Honor (02:56:26):
We'll be in recess until 2:00 PM.
Mr. Bailiff (02:56:29):
Court will be in recess till 2:00 PM.
Speaker 6 (03:30:00):
(silence)
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:32:36):
All right, we're back on the record. Is there anything that we need to discuss on behalf of the state?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:32:39):
No, your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:32:41):
On behalf of the defense?
Speaker 7 (04:32:41):
[inaudible 04:32:43].
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:32:43):
All right, Mr. Wilcox, if you can come retake your place at the witness stand please. I'm going to ask that you get up right up next to that microphone and speak directly into it so it'll pick you up better. Okay?
Shane Wilcox (04:33:10):
Okay.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:33:11):
All right, let's bring our jury in.
Mr. Bailiff (04:33:13):
Bring the jury. Jury seated, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:33:55):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has reentered the courtroom. All right, Mr. Smith, you may continue.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:34:07):
Thank you. Before we went on break, Mr. Wilcox, we talked about you performing analysis on a number of evidentiary items in this case and you produced labs case records 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:34:24):
That's correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:34:25):
And there are other analysts that did other records?
Shane Wilcox (04:34:29):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:34:30):
As to a lab record level, or strike that, a lab case record one, do you know if there was any analysis done on a lab case record one?
Shane Wilcox (04:34:41):
There was not.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:34:47):
Right before the break, we entered state's Exhibit 109, which were your digital labs for 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. At this time, Judge, permission to publish, at least we'll start with lab number Case record eight.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:35:01):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:35:02):
Thank you. Do you have a copy of your lab in front of you?
Shane Wilcox (04:35:07):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:35:08):
And we're going to walk down each lab, and I want to talk about your case record eight. When was case record eight conducted?
Shane Wilcox (04:35:23):
It was released in February of 2021.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:35:26):
February 3rd, 2021 to be exact, correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:35:28):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:35:29):
And what were you asked to do in case record eight?
Shane Wilcox (04:35:36):
For this case record, I conducted DNA, blood, and semen testing.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:35:43):
All right. So let's walk down. At the time you had a number of profiles that you were asked to run against evidentiary, correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:35:57):
Correct. I had evidence that I was attempting to generate unknown profiles from, and then I had, if I generated profiles, I was to compare them to known standards.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:36:03):
Known standards. So your known standards for case record eight were what or who?
Shane Wilcox (04:36:11):
Item one, David Provette. Item two, Dale Hunt. Item 3-1, Hayden Fields. Item 21, Jamie Sykes. Item 22, Hailey Fossette. Item 23, Melissa Brown. Item 24, Michael Hall.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:36:33):
And what items of evidence were you looking to generate profiles from to compare them to those standards?
Shane Wilcox (04:36:41):
Item 16, a white sheet. Item 17, a gray and white sheet. Item 20, a tan pillow case. Item 29, red Haynes male underwear. Item 30, a blue pony shirt. Item 31, purple top. Item 32, a belt. And item 33, a home run derby top.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:37:13):
And did you have a profile for Lisa Hunt at that time?
Shane Wilcox (04:37:17):
Yes. Item 25.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:37:19):
All right. May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:37:20):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:37:22):
All right. I'm going to go through just a number of evidentiary items with you, and we'll start with Lisa Hunt's profile, your lab item 25. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:37:36):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:37:37):
And I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit and entered as State's Exhibit 66. Do you recognize 66?
Shane Wilcox (04:38:17):
State's 66 is laboratory item number 25.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:38:20):
Which would be Lisa Hunt's profile, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:38:22):
That's what is listed as, yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:38:24):
Okay. And then let's talk about evidentiary items that you were trying to compare to the known standards. Your first one you said was lab item 16. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:38:38):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:38:46):
I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as State's Exhibit 55. Now there's a brown paper bag listed as Penner County item number 20. It's been repackaged, and ask that you look... I'm going to show you the contents of State's Exhibit 55. Do you recognize State's Exhibit 55?
Shane Wilcox (04:39:19):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:39:20):
And what is State's Exhibit 55?
Shane Wilcox (04:39:21):
State's 55 is laboratory item number 16. I can recognize it from the laboratory case number, item number, as well as my date and initials.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:39:38):
And you said also lab item number 17. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:39:45):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:39:46):
I'm going to show you what's already been admitted to State's Exhibit 56. Do you recognize State's Exhibit 56?
Shane Wilcox (04:39:52):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:39:52):
And what is 56?
Shane Wilcox (04:39:54):
State's item 56 is laboratory item number 17. I recognize it from the case number, item number, my date and initials.
Shane Wilcox (04:40:00):
My date and initials.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:40:09):
Then you said you also analyzed lab number 20, which was a tan pillow case. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:40:17):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:40:18):
I'm going to show you what's already been admitted to State's Exhibit 63. Do you recognize State's Exhibit 63?
Shane Wilcox (04:40:24):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:40:25):
What is State's Exhibit 63?
Shane Wilcox (04:40:26):
State's 63 is laboratory item number 20. I recognize it from the case number, item number, my date and initials.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:40:51):
And you also said that you analyzed lab item number 29, a pair of red Haynes male underwear. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:40:59):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:40:59):
I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as State's Exhibit 54. I'm going to ask, do you recognize State's Exhibit 54?
Shane Wilcox (04:41:06):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:41:06):
And what is 54?
Shane Wilcox (04:41:08):
State's 54 is laboratory item number 29. I recognize it from the case number, item number, my date and initials.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:41:13):
Thank you. Then you analyzed a lab item number 30, a blue pony T-shirt. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:41:26):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:41:27):
I'm going to show you what's been admitted as State's Exhibit 59. Do you recognize 59?
Shane Wilcox (04:41:31):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:41:32):
And what is 59?
Shane Wilcox (04:41:33):
State's 59 is laboratory item number 30. I recognize it from the case number, item number, my date and initials.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:41:39):
Then you analyzed item 31, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:41:45):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:41:46):
And 31 was a purple top or a purple shirt, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:41:49):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:41:50):
I'm going to show you what's been admitted as State's Exhibit 60. Do you recognize 60?
Shane Wilcox (04:41:55):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:41:56):
And what is 60?
Shane Wilcox (04:41:57):
State's 60 is laboratory item number 31. I recognize it from the case number, item number, my initials and date.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:42:04):
And I'm going to show you what's... Strike that. Did you analyze lab item number 32?
Shane Wilcox (04:42:10):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:42:12):
A tan belt?
Shane Wilcox (04:42:13):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:42:13):
Tan canvas belt? I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 65. Do you recognize 65?
Shane Wilcox (04:42:18):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:42:19):
What is 65?
Shane Wilcox (04:42:21):
State's 65 is the laboratory item number 32. I recognize it from the case number, item number, date and initials.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:42:29):
And then finally for record level or case record eight, did you analyze lab item 33?
Shane Wilcox (04:42:38):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:42:38):
A blue home derby shirt?
Shane Wilcox (04:42:41):
I did.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:42:42):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 58. Do you recognize 58?
Shane Wilcox (04:42:47):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:42:47):
And what is 58?
Shane Wilcox (04:42:47):
State's 58 is laboratory item number 33. I recognize the case number, item number, my initials and date.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:42:54):
Thank you. And what kind of analysis were you asked to perform? We'll start with item number 16. Is the gray and white sheet, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:43:13):
It is.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:43:14):
What were you asked to perform on this?
Shane Wilcox (04:43:16):
DNA analysis.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:43:18):
And did you perform such analysis?
Shane Wilcox (04:43:21):
I did.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:43:22):
And what did you do?
Shane Wilcox (04:43:25):
I took cuttings from that sheet, which I then performed DNA analysis on.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:43:34):
How many cuttings did you take from that sheet?
Shane Wilcox (04:43:37):
Two.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:43:40):
I'm going to take you at this time, Judge, permission to publish 109?
Judge (04:43:44):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:43:45):
I'm going to take you to page 180 of your report, your case record eight. Can you see that up on the screen?
Shane Wilcox (04:44:00):
I can.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:44:04):
And what does this page 180 represent?
Shane Wilcox (04:44:08):
That represents the photographs I took from the item of the areas that I cut for DNA analysis.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:44:13):
So you took two cuttings, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:44:15):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:44:16):
And what did you label these cuttings as?
Shane Wilcox (04:44:20):
Sub items. So they became 16-1 and 16-2 taken from item 16.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:44:26):
All right. And 16-1, how did you determine where to cut on 16-1?
Shane Wilcox (04:44:35):
I'm just looking for an area in the center of the stain. Honestly, it's a training experience thing.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:44:41):
And as to 16-2, how did you know where to try it?
Shane Wilcox (04:44:45):
Same idea. I'm looking for an area that I'm expecting to contain DNA.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:44:50):
Now, you did not perform a body fluid analysis on this particular piece of evidence, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:44:58):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:44:58):
That was done by Ms. Chowdhury?
Shane Wilcox (04:45:00):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:45:01):
And when you did a cutting of this, were you aware if a presumptive blood test was done on these two areas?
Shane Wilcox (04:45:10):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:45:10):
And were they done?
Shane Wilcox (04:45:13):
They were.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:45:14):
And were they positive or negative?
Shane Wilcox (04:45:16):
They were positive.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:45:17):
And that's a presumptive test?
Shane Wilcox (04:45:19):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:45:19):
Did you do a confirmatory test for blood?
Shane Wilcox (04:45:21):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:45:22):
Why not?
Shane Wilcox (04:45:23):
DNA testing is human specific. So while I cannot say it's human blood, we got a positive result with the presumptive tests. And then we have a human DNA profile.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:45:34):
And is that the reason that you took cutting in 16-1 from this area, the 16-2 from area 59 as it's labeled on this photograph?
Shane Wilcox (04:45:43):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:45:43):
Was because Ms. Chowdhury found it was presumptive for blood?
Shane Wilcox (04:45:48):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:45:48):
All right. So talk to the jury about your analysis of 16-1.
Shane Wilcox (04:45:57):
So the DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the sheet 16-1 is being interpreted as a mixture of two contributors. This mixture contains at least one male contributor. DNA profile obtained from H. Fossette is included as a possible contributor to the interpretable component of this mixture. The DNA profiles obtained from David Privat, Dale Hunt, Peyton Fields, Jay Sykes, M. Brown, M. Hall, and Lisa Hunt are excluded as contributors to the interpretable component of the mixture. The DNA profile for contributor two is inconclusive due to an insufficient quality of recovered DNA. No comparisons can be made to this component.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:46:38):
And so you found in your analysis that there were two profiles generated from this one cutting, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:46:47):
I interpreted the mixture as a mixture of two contributors.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:46:50):
All right. And talk to the jury about the mixtures. When you see a mixture, how do you analyze that?
Shane Wilcox (04:46:57):
As you heard previously, a mixture is when there is more than one individual's DNA present. And I would see that from how many peaks are present at the end when I develop the profile, because you get half your DNA from your mom and half from your dad, the most I would expect at one location is two peaks if you got different peaks. It could be one peak if you got the same from each parent. So when there's more than two peaks at a location, that is indicative of a mixture. And then depending on how many peaks is how many contributors.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:47:22):
Okay. And you believe from the cutting in this area, there were two contributors?
Shane Wilcox (04:47:26):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:47:27):
There's a major and a minor?
Shane Wilcox (04:47:31):
There were two contributor. I'm not sure on the-
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:47:33):
You didn't label them as a major or minor?
Shane Wilcox (04:47:35):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:47:36):
And you said in your analysis that the DNA profile obtained from H. Fossette, would that be Haley Fossette from item number 22?
Shane Wilcox (04:47:49):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:47:50):
All right. And is there a reason why you don't put first names on your results paragraph?
Shane Wilcox (04:47:57):
Sometimes they're included, sometimes they're not. Generally, since this was reported previously, I think I used what was previously written in a report.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:48:04):
All right. And you say here is included as a possible contributor to the interpretable component. What do you mean by possible contributor?
Shane Wilcox (04:48:14):
We can never be 100% sure on this profile came from this sample simply because we have not DNA typed every person who has ever lived or has died on the history of the earth. So possible contributor, and then that is represented by the statistic generated.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:48:32):
Now, has that limitation always been in place at the state crime lab? Has there been a time where they did say there was a match instead of possible contributors?
Shane Wilcox (04:48:45):
The wording has changed over time. I am not aware of a time where we did source attribution saying that this profile is this person. It's possible prior to my time, but as far as I have been trained, that is not something that we do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:48:57):
So when we see the language, "Possible contributor to an interpretable component," that is the normal language that DNA analysts use at state crime lab?
Shane Wilcox (04:49:07):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:49:08):
And then you have a statistical analysis following that interpretation, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:49:13):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:49:13):
And what is your statistical analysis for 16-1?
Shane Wilcox (04:49:18):
So given the evidence, the following propositions were considered for the statistical calculation. Hypothesis one, the evidence originated from H. Fossette and an unknown unrelated individual. Or hypothesis two, the evidence originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. The statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from H. Fossette as contributor one of the mixture. DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the sheet is at least 122 octillion times more likely if it originated from H. Fossette and an unknown unrelated individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:49:55):
And there are not even one octillion people in this world, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:50:01):
Correct. I believe the current world population is about eight billion.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:50:05):
And octillion is 29. If you're writing it in short form, it's-
Shane Wilcox (04:50:12):
It's a one followed by 29 zeros.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:50:14):
Thank you. And you said that there was a possible or there was a second contributor, but it was inconclusive due to insufficient quality or excuse me, insufficient quality of recovered DNA. What do you mean by that?
Shane Wilcox (04:50:28):
There's simply not enough information there for me to make any comparisons to.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:50:31):
All right. Since you can't make a comparison, it could be anybody's DNA there, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:50:39):
Yeah, I cannot say.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:50:41):
All right. Let's move to 16-2. Do you see the cutting from 16-2 up on the TV?
Shane Wilcox (04:50:48):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:50:49):
All tight. And again, based upon your training and experience, you cut it where you thought that you would probably get a profile, is that what it-
Shane Wilcox (04:50:57):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:50:59):
And what was your interpretation of 16-2?
Shane Wilcox (04:51:03):
So the profile generated from this sample is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. Mixture contains at least one male contributor. The DNA profile obtained from Peyton Fields is included as a possible contributor to the interpretable component of this mixture. The DNA profiles obtained from David Privat, Dale Hunt, Jay Sykes, H. Fossette, M. Brown, M. Hall, and Lisa Hunt are excluded as contributors to the interpretable component of this mixture. Components two, three, and four of the mixture are inconclusive. I cannot make any comparisons to those.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:51:37):
So when you exclude somebody from an interpretable component, and in this particular case, you have a mixture of four, correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:51:47):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:51:48):
How many interpretable components out of this mixture of four do you have for 16-2?
Shane Wilcox (04:51:53):
Only one.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:51:54):
So when you're saying that somebody's excluded, you've included Peyton Fields in the interpretable component. Excluded everybody else out from the interpretable component, but you still have three uninterpretable components, correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:52:10):
Correct. I can make a comparison to component one. I cannot make any comparisons to component two, three, and four.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:52:16):
All right. So what is your statistical analysis for 16-2?
Shane Wilcox (04:52:21):
So again, we're looking at two hypothesis. Hypothesis one, the evidence originated from Peyton Fields and three unknown unrelated individuals. Or hypothesis two, the evidence originated from four unknown unrelated individuals. The statistical calculations best fit Peyton Fields as contributor one to this mixture. The DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the sheet is at least 2.4 septillion times more likely if it originated from Peyton Fields. And three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:52:54):
Now this use in statistical calculations or statistical analysis using hypothesis one and two. This is a lab that was released in 2021. Your analysis occurred in late 2020 or early 2021?
Shane Wilcox (04:53:13):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:53:13):
Is this something that the lab started using around that time, hypothesis one and two?
Shane Wilcox (04:53:20):
Yeah. So this is called a likelihood ratio and it's comparing how likely each of these scenarios are versus each other. So if both scenarios are as likely, the value would be one. When there's more support for hypothesis one, the inclusion, that number becomes larger. If there's more support for hypothesis two, that number becomes smaller.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:53:47):
All right. Did you do any more cuttings from this lab item 16, this white sheet?
Shane Wilcox (04:53:56):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:53:57):
And do you remember when you did these cuttings, how far 16-1 and 16-2 were from each other? Do you remember?
Shane Wilcox (04:54:07):
I do not.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:54:19):
All right. Let me go to 17. 17 was a gray and white sheet, your item 17, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:54:33):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:54:34):
And you were asked to perform DNA analysis on this?
Shane Wilcox (04:54:37):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:54:38):
And what did you do to perform this DNA analysis?
Shane Wilcox (04:54:43):
I took two cuttings from two stains on that sheet, attempted to run a DNA analysis on those stains. I ended up with not enough DNA to continue the process after quantitation.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:54:54):
All right. I'm going to take you then to page 181 of your report and publish it up on the TV. Do you see that?
Shane Wilcox (04:55:05):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:55:06):
And again, these areas that you chose, and I think those were areas 19 and 20, correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:55:12):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:55:13):
Why were those areas chosen to take cuttings from?
Shane Wilcox (04:55:18):
If I remember correctly, those areas were positive for the Kastle-Meyer test from a previous analysis.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:55:23):
Which is the presumption for blood, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:55:25):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:55:27):
And you didn't do a confirmatory test, instead you did DNA analysis, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:55:31):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:55:32):
And again, the same question. Within 19 and 20, why did you pick the area that you did for the cuttings?
Shane Wilcox (04:55:41):
Looking for the area that had a good amount of staining, which I would expect to have DNA present.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:55:46):
And in fact, when you ran it in 17-1 and 17-2, there was an insufficient amount of DNA?
Shane Wilcox (04:55:54):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:55:56):
That happens, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:55:57):
It does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:55:58):
Even though something could test presumably test positive for blood, there's times where you don't get sufficient amounts?
Shane Wilcox (04:56:09):
There simply was not enough in those samples.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:56:12):
And what are reasons why you wouldn't get sufficient amounts?
Shane Wilcox (04:56:17):
It could be diluted. It could be not human blood. Animal blood would have a quantitation value of zero. Since the quantitation step is human specific, it could be degraded.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:56:32):
Now, I'm going to take you to lab item 20, 10 pillowcase. And were you asked to perform DNA analysis on this 10 pillowcase item?
Shane Wilcox (04:56:45):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:56:45):
All right.
Speaker 8 (04:56:50):
I'm sorry. If you could wait until he's finished with his question. Thank you.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:56:54):
You were asked to perform DNA analysis on him?
Shane Wilcox (04:56:56):
I was.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:56:58):
And what did you do to perform the DNA analysis?
Shane Wilcox (04:57:03):
Again, like the previous items, took cuttings from areas that were indicated as positive and then tested them.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:57:10):
How many areas did you take cuttings from?
Shane Wilcox (04:57:13):
Three areas.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:57:14):
All right. If you'll look up on the TV, I'm taking you to your page 182, all right? We've got an area labeled 11, an area labeled 13, an area labeled 14. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:57:27):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:57:29):
Area 11, you took, looks like a cutting 20-1?
Shane Wilcox (04:57:34):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:57:35):
Area 13, 20-2?
Shane Wilcox (04:57:37):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:57:39):
Area 14, 20-3, correct?
Shane Wilcox (04:57:42):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:57:45):
Let's start with 20-1. What was your analysis and conclusions?
Shane Wilcox (04:57:50):
So the DNA profile obtained from the cutting that was 20-1 is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. This mixture contains at least one male contributor. The DNA profile obtained from Peyton Fields is included as a possible contributor to the interpretable components of this mixture. The DNA profiles obtained from David Privat, Jay Sykes, H. Fossette, M. Brown, M. Hall are excluded as contributors to the interpretable components of the mixture. No conclusion can be rendered as to the contribution of the DNA profiles obtained from Dale Hunt and Lisa Hunt due to an inconclusive likelihood ratio result. Components three and components four of the mixture are inconclusive. I cannot make any comparisons to those components.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:58:36):
All right. So you say that mixture four, Peyton Fields is included as a possible contributor. And you cannot make a conclusion as to Dale Hunt or Lisa Hunt due to inconclusive likelihood ratio result. What is that?
Shane Wilcox (04:58:56):
So like I was explaining before, the likelihood ratio is a range of values. When there's more support for H1, the value gets larger. When there's more support for H2, the value gets smaller. If they're both equal, the value is one. During our validation of the STRmix software and the statistics, we found the best way to report our results were to have an inconclusive range. So we have values from 1 to 1,000 and 1 to 0.001. Where we would not say this is an inclusion or an exclusion because we could not be 100% sure. So any value that fell between a likelihood ratio result of 1,000 and 0.001, we reported as inconclusive versus an inclusion or an exclusion.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:59:44):
Then as to a fourth profile, you said what?
Shane Wilcox (04:59:54):
Components three and components four of the mixture are inconclusive.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (04:59:58):
Due to insufficient quality of recovered DNA, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:00:00):
Yeah. Simply not enough information for me to make reliable comparisons.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:00:04):
All right. What's your statistical analysis for 20-1?
Shane Wilcox (05:00:08):
So hypothesis one, the evidence originated from Peyton Fields and three unknown unrelated individuals. Versus hypothesis two, the evidence originated from four unknown unrelated individuals. The DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the pillowcase is at least 602 trillion times more likely if it originated from Peyton Fields and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:00:36):
Let me take you to your cutting 20-2. Were you able to make a conclusion as to 20-2?
Shane Wilcox (05:00:43):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:00:44):
And what was your conclusion?
Shane Wilcox (05:00:45):
The profile is being interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. The mixture contains at least one male contributor. DNA profile from contributor one is from an unknown contributor. DNA profiles obtained from David Privat, Dale Hunt, Peyton Fields, Jay Sykes, H. Fossette, M. Brown, M. Hall, and Lisa Hunt are excluded as contributors to the integral component of this mixture. Components two and three of the mixture are inconclusive due to insufficient quality.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:01:16):
So you were able to generate a profile, but from the standards that you ran that against, you've excluded everybody, as we previously talked about, the ones that you were including as the standards here. And therefore it's an unknown contributor, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:01:32):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:01:33):
All right. Let me take you to 20-3. What, if any, conclusions did you make about 20-3?
Shane Wilcox (05:01:41):
The profile from 20-3 is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. The mixture contains at least one male contributor. The DNA profile from contributor one is from an unknown contributor. The DNA profiles obtained from David Privat, Dale Hunt, Peyton Fields, JA Sykes, H. Fossette, M. Brown, and M. Hall, and Lisa Hunt are excluded as contributors to the interpretable components of the mixture. Components two, three, and four are inconclusive. So again, another unknown contributor.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:02:12):
But just like 20-2 and 20-3, we know that the interpretable component is a male, correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:02:24):
There's at least one male contributor. I would have to look at the actual profile to know if contributor one was male, but there's at least one male contributor in the mixture.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:02:32):
Thank you. Let me take you to 29. What is 29? Item 29, excuse me.
Shane Wilcox (05:02:40):
Item 29 is underwear.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:02:43):
Okay. I'm going to take you again to the screen. Page 183, what is 183?
Shane Wilcox (05:02:52):
183 is a photo of the underwear that I tested in this case.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:02:57):
All right. And you took cuttings from items 16 and 17, is that correct? And of item 20, right?
Shane Wilcox (05:03:08):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:03:09):
The sheets and the pillowcase, you took cuttings. Did you take cuttings from the underwear?
Shane Wilcox (05:03:14):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:03:15):
Okay. What analysis were you asked to perform on item 29, the underwear?
Shane Wilcox (05:03:21):
So these underwear got Kastle-Meyer and acidosis tests, so the presumptive testing for semen and for blood, as well as DNA analysis.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:03:30):
And what were the findings as to the presumptive test for blood?
Shane Wilcox (05:03:36):
Negative.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:03:37):
Presumptive test for semen?
Shane Wilcox (05:03:39):
Also negative.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:03:40):
So then you moved to the DNA analysis?
Shane Wilcox (05:03:43):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:03:44):
And do you take a cutting from the underwear or do you do something different.
Shane Wilcox (05:03:48):
For this sample, I took a swabbing. So I took a sterile cotton swab, added sterile water to it, and rubbed the area to attempt to collect DNA.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:03:58):
Why didn't you do a cutting? Why did you do a swabbing?
Shane Wilcox (05:04:01):
A swabbing can cover a larger surface area versus a cutting, which is only the surface area that you're actually cutting out.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:04:07):
And did you come to a conclusion regarding the DNA analysis of the underwear?
Shane Wilcox (05:04:14):
Yes. The profile developed from that swabbing is being interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. The DNA profiles obtained from Dale Hunt and Lisa Hunt are included as possible contributors to the interpretable components of the mixture. The DNA profiles obtained from David Privat, Peyton Fields, Jay Sykes, H. Fossette, Ham Brown, M. Hall are excluded as contributors to the interpretable components of the mixture. And that third component is inconclusive.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:04:43):
And what was your statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (05:04:48):
So there were two separate ones run. The first one for Dale Hunt, hypothesis one, the evidence originated from Dale Hunt and two unknown unrelated individuals. Or hypothesis two, the evidence originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. The statistical calculation best fit the DNA profile obtained from Dale Hunt as contributor one of the mixture. And the statistic for that comparison is at least 9.86 million times more likely if it originated from Dale Hunt and two unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. The second statistic that was run was for the standard of Lisa Hunt. So hypothesis one, the evidence originated from Lisa Hunt and two unknown unrelated individuals. Versus hypothesis two, the evidence originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. The statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile from Lisa Hunt as contributor two of the mixture. And the statistic for that was 552 octillion times more likely if it originated from Lisa Hunt and two unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:06:01):
Let me take you to item 30. Item 30 was the pony shirt, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:06:08):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:06:09):
I'm going to take you to page 185 of your report. It's actually going to be 185 all the way to 189, okay? So with 185, what were you asked to perform on 185?
Shane Wilcox (05:06:31):
The analysis of this item was, again, the presumptive semen and the presumptive blood testing.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:06:39):
What were your findings as to those two presumptive tests?
Shane Wilcox (05:06:41):
For the presumptive semen testing, all the areas tested were negative.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:06:49):
For what?
Shane Wilcox (05:06:51):
For semen.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:06:52):
For semen? As for blood, the Kastle-Meyer test, what were your findings for that?
Shane Wilcox (05:06:57):
Two areas were positive.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:06:58):
Okay. And what areas were those?
Shane Wilcox (05:07:02):
Those were areas 23 and 24.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:07:06):
All right. I'm going to take you on page 185 of your report. It's the pony shirt, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:07:14):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:07:14):
And on the front of it, you've got a number of areas circled and numbered. What are those areas?
Shane Wilcox (05:07:22):
Those are the areas that I tested. So to analyze an item like this for the acid phosphatase test or the presumptive semen test, I'm first going to take an alternate light source. It's basically a fancy flashlight with a pair of goggles, and I'm going to look for areas that fluoresce or glow under the light. I'll then circle those areas. And those are the areas that I've identified to test for the possible presence of semen. So all of those areas, areas 1 through 22, were circled after looking at it with the light. All of those areas tested negative with the acid phosphatase test.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:07:56):
So on the front, negative for semen, correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:08:02):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:08:02):
And for blood?
Shane Wilcox (05:08:03):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:08:04):
All right. I'm going to take you to the next page, 186. It looks like it's the... Well, you tell me what it is. Is it the back of the shirt?
Shane Wilcox (05:08:12):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:08:13):
And again, numbering, looks like 12 through 20. You used the same process?
Shane Wilcox (05:08:21):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:08:22):
And what were your findings on the back of the shirt?
Shane Wilcox (05:08:25):
Those areas were also negative.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:08:28):
All right. I'm going to take you to page 187 of your shirt, not your shirt, of the shirt. And what are we looking at on page 187?
Shane Wilcox (05:08:39):
It appears to be the back inside portion.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:08:42):
Okay. And what were your findings from this area?
Shane Wilcox (05:08:45):
22 was also negative.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:08:48):
That's at the bottom here, correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:08:49):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:08:50):
Of the shirt. I'm going to take you to page 188 of your shirt... Of the shirt, excuse me. What are we looking at and what were your findings here?
Shane Wilcox (05:09:00):
So areas 23 and 24 were not identified with the alternate light source. Those appeared to be red-brown staining, so I tested that with the Kastle-Meyer test.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:09:10):
What was your finding?
Shane Wilcox (05:09:11):
Both of those areas gave chemical indications for the presence of blood.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:09:15):
So 23 is up towards the... As we're looking at the shirt, it would be our right, or in this photograph, the top left, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:09:28):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:09:29):
All right. And then 24 is down at the bottom of the shirt right of our screen, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:09:36):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:09:37):
All right. In response to those two areas being presumptively positive for blood, what did you do?
Shane Wilcox (05:09:43):
I then took cuttings from those areas and ran DNA on them.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:09:48):
All right. I'm going to take you then to page 189. What are we looking at on page 189?
Shane Wilcox (05:09:54):
That's just a closer image of the actual areas.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:09:57):
Okay. So 24, you labeled it as 30-2, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:10:03):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:10:04):
That you're cutting 30-2. And then on area 23, so you're cutting 30-1. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:10:09):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:10:10):
All right. So then you find these tested presumptives for blood. You ran DNA analysis. What did you find?
Shane Wilcox (05:10:17):
So for item 30-1, the DNA profile is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. DNA profile obtained from Peyton Fields is included as a possible contributor to the interpretable component of this mixture. The DNA profiles obtained from David Privat, Dale Hunt, Jay Sykes, H. Fossette, M. Brown, M. Hall, and Lisa Hunt are excluded as contributors to the interpretable component of the mixture. Components two, three, and four are inconclusive. I can't make any comparisons to those.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:10:49):
Statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (05:10:51):
Hypothesis one, the evidence originated from Peyton Fields and three unknown unrelated individuals. Or hypothesis two, the evidence originated from four unknown unrelated individuals. The statistics best fit the DNA profile obtained from Peyton Fields as contributor one of the mixture. The DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the shirt is at least 66.9 septillion times more likely if it originated from Peyton Fields and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:11:24):
30-2, which was your cutting from I believe area 24. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:11:30):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:11:31):
What were your findings on that?
Shane Wilcox (05:11:33):
The DNA profile obtained from that cutting is uninterpretable due to the complexity of the mixture. It's not suitable for interpretation or comparisons.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:11:42):
What does that mean on complexity? That's a little bit different term that you used before. What is complexity of the mixture?
Shane Wilcox (05:11:47):
That's generally used when there's too many. So we have a limit of four contributors that we will interpret. Once it gets to more than that, we can't reliably make comparisons to the profile.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:11:57):
Could you tell if it was human DNA or not?
Shane Wilcox (05:11:59):
Yes. A DNA profile was developed, so there's human DNA present. There's simply too many profiles to make reliable comparisons to.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:12:06):
Thank you. Take you to item 31, the purple shirt, correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:12:11):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:12:12):
I'm going to take you then to your page 190, 191, 192. And what were you asked to do for item number 31?
Shane Wilcox (05:12:26):
This got the same testing as the previous item, so presumptive semen and presumptive blood testing and also DNA analysis.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:12:34):
What were your findings as to the presumptive test for semen?
Shane Wilcox (05:12:39):
All of the presumptive semen testing was negative.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:12:42):
How about for the presumptive test for blood?
Shane Wilcox (05:12:45):
There was one positive result. It was on a general rubbing, not an area.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:12:51):
And were you able to develop a DNA profile from the general rubbing?
Shane Wilcox (05:12:57):
So I did take a swabbing from the area that I was able to somewhat localize the positive result to. Again, this was uninterpretable due to complexity of the mixture.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:13:16):
Why did you do a rubbing rather than a cutting from this shirt?
Shane Wilcox (05:13:22):
So per policy, depending on the results of the testing, because I did not have an area that I could visualize as being positive, I therefore did not, per our policy, complete the testing. So a general rubbing, it's exactly what it sounds like. I'm going to break the shirt into sections. I'm going to take the filter paper, rub over those sections and test the sections as an area. Because the item is not white, I can't therefore say there's no red brown staining. It could be hiding in the purple color. So we test the entire surface of the shirt to attempt to locate a positive area.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:13:58):
And that's what you did, then you sent it to DNA analysis or you found a DNA profile?
Shane Wilcox (05:14:03):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:14:05):
And then what were your findings as to the DNA profile?
Shane Wilcox (05:14:08):
That profile was uninterpreted due to complexity of the mixture.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:14:11):
Again, too complex to render an opinion?
Shane Wilcox (05:14:15):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:14:16):
All right. Let me take you to item 32. What is 32 again?
Shane Wilcox (05:14:21):
A belt.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:14:22):
All right. I'm going to take you to page 193 of your report. What were you asked to perform on the belt?
Shane Wilcox (05:14:33):
Blood testing I performed on this belt.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:14:35):
And what were your findings?
Shane Wilcox (05:14:37):
Areas one and two were negative. I then took a swabbing of the entire surface of the belt and sent that to DNA.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:14:45):
So no chemical indications for the presence of blood?
Shane Wilcox (05:14:48):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:14:49):
And from a general swabbing, correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:14:51):
From areas one and two.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:14:53):
I'm sorry, one and two. On page 193 of your report, is that what we're looking at on page 193?
Shane Wilcox (05:15:02):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:15:03):
Why did you pick-
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:15:00):
Page 193?
Shane Wilcox (05:15:02):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:15:03):
Why did you pick areas one and two?
Shane Wilcox (05:15:06):
That was the areas that appeared to possibly be a red/brown stain.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:15:12):
But it failed to confirm for the presence of blood?
Shane Wilcox (05:15:15):
They were both negative results.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:15:17):
And what did you do next?
Shane Wilcox (05:15:20):
Took a swabbing from that entire surface and then tested that swabbing for DNA.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:15:24):
Did you go both sides of it or just one side of it?
Shane Wilcox (05:15:27):
The entire surface.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:15:28):
Including the buccal?
Shane Wilcox (05:15:29):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:15:30):
And what were your findings?
Shane Wilcox (05:15:36):
The DNA profile obtained from that swabbing is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. The DNA profiles obtained from David Prevatte and H. Fawcett are included as possible contributors to the interpretable components of the mixture. The DNA profiles obtained from Dale Hunt, Paitin Fields, J. Sykes, M. Brown, M. Hall, Lisa Hunt are excluded as contributors to the interpretable components of the mixture. Components three and four are inconclusive. I can't make any comparisons to those.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:16:06):
What was your statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (05:16:09):
Hypothesis one, the evidence originated from H. Fawcett and three unknown, unrelated individuals. Versus hypothesis two, the evidence originated from four unknown, unrelated individuals. The statistic best fits the profile from Haley Fawcett as contributor one of this mixture. The statistic for that is at least 34.8 octillion times more likely if it originated from H. Fawcett and three unknown, unrelated individuals, than if it originated from four unknown, unrelated individuals.
(05:16:40)
And the second part of that statistic, hypothesis one, the evidence originated from David Prevatte and three unknown, unrelated individuals. Versus the evidence originated from four unknown, unrelated individuals. The statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile from David Prevatte as contributor two of this mixture profile. And the statistic was 395 sextillion times more likely if it originated from David Prevatte and three unknown, unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown, unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:17:14):
Finally, on your case record number eight, you were asked to analyze item number 33, the Home Derby shirt. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:17:24):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:17:25):
And I'm going to take you to your page 194 of your report. And what were you asked to perform on the item 33?
Shane Wilcox (05:17:36):
The shirt got both semen and blood testing.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:17:39):
And let's start with semen. What were the results from the semen test?
Shane Wilcox (05:17:45):
There was only one area that I identified with the alternate light source and it tested negative.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:17:50):
For semen?
Shane Wilcox (05:17:50):
For semen. And how about as to blood?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:17:54):
I did a general rubbing of the entire shirt. I did not visualize any red/brown staining and that was negative.
(05:18:00)
And what did you do next then?
Shane Wilcox (05:18:02):
No further analysis on that item.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:18:04):
Why not?
Shane Wilcox (05:18:04):
There was no areas of potential body fluids to test.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:18:08):
All right. So that completed your analysis in case record eight, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:18:14):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:18:15):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge Jensen (05:18:17):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:18:17):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 110 for identification purposes. Do you recognize State's Exhibit 110?
Shane Wilcox (05:18:30):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:18:30):
What is 110?
Shane Wilcox (05:18:31):
It's a copy of the summary of the lab report for this.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:18:34):
For case record eight?
Shane Wilcox (05:18:35):
Case record eight.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:18:36):
And again, what was the date of this report?
Shane Wilcox (05:18:40):
It was released February 3rd of 2021.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:18:43):
And does it contain your signature?
Shane Wilcox (05:18:46):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:18:47):
Has it been altered or edited in any way?
Shane Wilcox (05:18:49):
It does not appear to be.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:18:50):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 110.
Judge Jensen (05:18:52):
Any objection?
Luther Britt (05:18:54):
No, sir.
Judge Jensen (05:18:54):
State's Exhibit 110 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:19:00):
Permission to publish 110?
Judge Jensen (05:19:01):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:19:04):
Can you see the screen, Mr. Wilcox?
Shane Wilcox (05:19:09):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:19:11):
And does this appear to be the heading of your case record eight?
Shane Wilcox (05:19:16):
It does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:19:16):
And it contains the summary of the findings that we just went over with the jury?
Shane Wilcox (05:19:20):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:19:21):
And again, it lists all the items that you tested and the standards which you tested against, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:19:29):
It does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:19:30):
All right. And your conclusions?
Shane Wilcox (05:19:32):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:19:32):
Then you were asked at a later time to analyze more items, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:19:59):
I was.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:20:00):
And did you also generate a case record nine showing what you analyzed next?
Shane Wilcox (05:20:08):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:20:09):
All right. And that was contained on State's Exhibit 109, is that correct, that we previously introduced the digital copies?
Shane Wilcox (05:20:18):
It was.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:20:20):
And let's go to case record nine. Do you have that in front of you?
Shane Wilcox (05:20:29):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:20:30):
And what were you asked to analyze in nine?
Shane Wilcox (05:20:48):
Item eight, a pair of blue child's pants. Item 34, a pair of men's Dickie pants. Item 35, buccal swabs from Jordan Swenson. Item 36, buccal swabs from Savannah Fields. Item 37, buccal swabs from Larry Huggins. Item 38, a nylon rope bracelet.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:21:17):
Were you asked to also... Well, strike that. I'm going to... May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge Jensen (05:21:25):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:21:30):
All right. You started with new items, item number eight, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:21:35):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:21:36):
All right. And what was item number eight?
Shane Wilcox (05:21:40):
A pair of blue child's pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:21:43):
Did you do anything with these pants? Did you take a swabbing or cutting from this or did somebody else?
Shane Wilcox (05:21:55):
I took swabbings from these pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:21:56):
All right. I'm going to show you what's been previously admitted as State's Exhibit 38. Do you recognize 38?
Shane Wilcox (05:22:55):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:22:57):
What is 38?
Shane Wilcox (05:22:58):
State's Exhibit 38 is laboratory item number eight. It's the blue child's pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:23:05):
Thank you. And these are what you analyzed in your case record number nine?
Shane Wilcox (05:23:09):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:23:10):
And you said you were also asked to analyze what after...
Shane Wilcox (05:23:20):
Laboratory item number 34, men's Dickie pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:23:23):
All right. I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as State's Exhibit 39. That was Pender County's number what?
Shane Wilcox (05:23:36):
Four.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:23:36):
Okay. I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 39, and on it is item number what?
Shane Wilcox (05:23:50):
Four.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:23:51):
I'm going to open them up. I'm going to show you an envelope or a bag that was inside of State's Exhibit 39. Do you recognize State's Exhibit 39 or the bag inside State's Exhibit 39?
Shane Wilcox (05:24:40):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:24:40):
What is it?
Shane Wilcox (05:24:41):
It is laboratory item number 34.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:24:43):
All right. And a pair of Dickie pants, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:24:47):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:24:53):
And do you recognize what it shows?
Shane Wilcox (05:24:55):
They appear to be the pants that I tested.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:24:57):
All right. And we'll come back to those in a minute. You were also asked to analyze case record nine.
Shane Wilcox (05:25:13):
Item 35, standard from Jordan Swenson.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:25:17):
All right. And I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 92. What is State's Exhibit 92?
Shane Wilcox (05:25:36):
State's 92 is laboratory item number 35, the DNA standard from Jordan Swenson.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:25:43):
What else?
Shane Wilcox (05:25:51):
Item 36, the DNA standard from Savannah Fields.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:25:54):
I'm going to show you what's been admitted as State's Exhibit 67. Do you recognize 67?
Shane Wilcox (05:26:00):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:26:01):
What is 67?
Shane Wilcox (05:26:02):
State's 67 is laboratory item number 36, the DNA standard from Savannah Fields.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:26:07):
All right. What else were you asked to analyze?
Shane Wilcox (05:26:09):
Item 37, the DNA standard from Larry Huggins.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:26:12):
I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as State's Exhibit 91. Do you recognize 91?
Shane Wilcox (05:26:17):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:26:18):
What is 91?
Shane Wilcox (05:26:19):
State's 91 is laboratory item number 37, the DNA standard from Larry Huggins.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:26:25):
All right. And then what was the other item that you were asked to analyze?
Shane Wilcox (05:26:31):
There were two. Item 38, the nylon rope bracelet and item 39, the MVAC filter.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:26:39):
All right. I'm going to show you what's been already admitted as State's Exhibit 61. Do you recognize 61?
Shane Wilcox (05:26:45):
State's-
Court Reporter (05:26:45):
I'm sorry. Did you say MVAC filter?
Shane Wilcox (05:26:47):
Yes.
Court Reporter (05:26:48):
Thank you.
Shane Wilcox (05:26:50):
State's 38 is laboratory... State's 61 is laboratory item number 38, and that is the nylon rope bracelet.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:26:59):
All right. And then you said the MVAC filter?
Shane Wilcox (05:27:03):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:27:03):
I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 69. Do you recognize 69?
Shane Wilcox (05:27:06):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:27:09):
And what is 69?
Shane Wilcox (05:27:11):
State's 69 is laboratory item number 39, the MVAC filter.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:27:17):
All right. Were you asked to analyze anything else in case record nine?
Shane Wilcox (05:27:21):
I ran STRmix on previous profiles that were developed in this case.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:27:44):
Explain again, what is STRmix?
Shane Wilcox (05:27:48):
STRmix is the interpretation software that we currently use to deconvolute or separate out our mixtures as well as generate the statistics.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:27:58):
How is that different from the previous software that Kristen Meyer testified about?
Shane Wilcox (05:28:03):
The previous software ArmedXpert does not take into account as much of the detail of the DNA profiles that we can use now. It was a more rudimentary version. The current software uses all of the information available in the profile, and generally we can get more information from a profile than we could have previously. Previously, it was a lot more on the analyst and you're kind of limited to what you can do with it. This software can do math much, much, much higher above most human's ability and separate those mixtures out more completely.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:28:42):
Do you know when they started using STRmix at the state crime lab?
Shane Wilcox (05:28:45):
I believe it was about 2020.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:28:49):
And is STRmix recognized in the field of DNA analysis throughout the United States and the world?
Shane Wilcox (05:28:55):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:28:59):
I'm going to take you to your record level nine. All right? I'm sorry. Case record nine. You are doing two different types of analysis. You're rerunning some of the older evidence against standards that... Old standards and new standards, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:29:26):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:29:28):
Because you had now the addition of Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, Larry Huggins, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:29:33):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:29:34):
In your previous standards, you just testified and others have testified about David Prevatte, Dale Hunt, Lisa Hunt, Paitin Fields. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:29:42):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:29:43):
Hailey Fawcett and some of the others. So one part of your analysis on your case record nine is rerunning evidence with the new STRmix software, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:29:54):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:29:55):
To see, can you get any more information from the comparisons and the profiles?
Shane Wilcox (05:30:00):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:30:00):
Then you're asked to run new analysis on some of the items that we just went over, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:30:06):
That is correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:30:07):
Dickie pants, a bracelet, some other items. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:30:11):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:30:12):
Right. And all of that is captured within your case record nine, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:30:18):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:30:19):
All right. So we're going to... You have case record nine in front of you?
Shane Wilcox (05:30:22):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:30:23):
All right. Judge, permission to publish State's Exhibit 109, specifically the case record nine that's on that disc.
Judge Jensen (05:30:29):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:30:35):
So I want to first go through and we'll just go just like we did before. What date did this case record nine, when was it released?
Shane Wilcox (05:30:48):
June 9th of 2021.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:30:53):
So I'd like to go through, we'll start at the very beginning of it. Items four and five. Remind the jury what lab items four and five are.
Shane Wilcox (05:31:13):
Lab items four and five. Item four is the swabbing from the nozzle and item five is the nail scrapings from David Prevatte.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:31:22):
Did you do any new swabbings of these items?
Shane Wilcox (05:31:28):
No. I was taking the data that was previously generated and running that through STRmix.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:31:34):
Is this common practice within state crime lab?
Shane Wilcox (05:31:36):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:31:37):
All right. And what were you... Were you asked to do any fluid analysis or anything else, or were you asked strictly to do DNA analysis on these items?
Shane Wilcox (05:31:48):
I had no contact with the item whatsoever. I was simply using the data that was previously generated. Taking the data from the DNA profile and putting that into the new software.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:31:57):
Okay. And what were your findings, if any, for items four and five, which were the plastic nozzle from the whipped cream can and the nail scrapings from David Prevatte?
Shane Wilcox (05:32:12):
So those profiles are being interpreted as a single source profile. The DNA profiles obtained from Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, and Larry Huggins are excluded as contributors to this profile.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:32:24):
So you ran them against the new standards, Swenson, Savannah Fields, Larry Huggins, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:32:30):
Correct. And again, with the new STRmix, you found that it's still a single source profile?
(05:32:37)
Yes. I'm not reinterpreting the profile. I'm using the interpretation and the data from the previous. I'm just putting that information into the new software.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:32:47):
Thank you. Let's go to item six. Item six is what?
Shane Wilcox (05:32:53):
The penile swab from David Prevatte.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:32:55):
All right. And what did you do with now the penile swab from David Prevatte, item six?
Shane Wilcox (05:33:02):
That was also run through STRmix. It's being interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. David Prevatte, the donor of the known sample, is assumed as being a contributor of the DNA from this profile. The DNA profiles obtained from Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, Larry Huggins are excluded as contributors to the interpretable components of this mixture. Component three of this mixture is inconclusive due to an insufficient quality of recovered DNA. Can't make any comparison to that component.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:33:32):
All right. So you've heard Kristen Meyer testify regarding four, five, and six previously today?
Shane Wilcox (05:33:39):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:33:39):
And she ran the initial analysis of four and five, which is six profile for nail scrapings of David Prevatte and the whipped cream nozzle, correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:33:53):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:33:54):
And did you change her findings at all in four and five?
Shane Wilcox (05:33:58):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:33:59):
All right. And then as to item six, the penile swab, it's still being interpreted as a mixture of three contributors?
Shane Wilcox (05:34:09):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:34:11):
David Prevatte is the known contributor because it was from him, correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:34:18):
Yes. We still have to make sure that the DNA profile is present in the mixture, but once I can recognize that, I then tell the software to account for that. So then it has an easier time trying to deconvolute the remaining profiles.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:34:32):
Okay. And did you hear her testify today also that she also found as a major contributor to this Hailey Fawcett?
Shane Wilcox (05:34:45):
I don't remember the specifics.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:34:46):
All right. Did you change her findings at all? Her meaning Kristen Meyer's findings at all?
Shane Wilcox (05:34:57):
I did not.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:35:00):
Okay. All right. So then let's go to item eight. Item eight was what?
Shane Wilcox (05:35:11):
Swabbing from the waistband of the... Item eight is the pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:35:18):
Blue child's pants?
Shane Wilcox (05:35:19):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:35:20):
Not the Dickie pants?
Shane Wilcox (05:35:21):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:35:22):
All right. Did you do any new analysis or collection on this particular item?
Shane Wilcox (05:35:30):
I did.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:35:31):
All right. And I'm going to take you to your report. Just a minute, Your Honor. Sorry I missed them. Let me take you to 239. Let me take you to 239 in your report. Do you have that in front of you?
Shane Wilcox (05:37:15):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:37:16):
All right. I'm going to also publish it up on the screen. All right. You said that you did do new analysis on lab item eight, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:37:35):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:37:35):
And what were you asked to do and what did you do?
Shane Wilcox (05:37:39):
For these pants, I was attempting to identify if there was any transfer of DNA, so I took swabbings from the button area as well as the interior of the waistband.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:37:52):
So the interior of the waistband was listed as a swabbing 8-1, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:37:59):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:38:00):
And then you did a swabbing near the button area of the pants?
Shane Wilcox (05:38:04):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:38:04):
And that was 8-2?
Shane Wilcox (05:38:06):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:38:06):
What were your findings for 8-1?
Shane Wilcox (05:38:10):
The DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the waistband of the pants is uninterpretable due to complexity of the mixture/due to limited data obtained. Profile is not suitable for interpretation or comparisons. All right.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:38:20):
What about 8-2?
Shane Wilcox (05:38:24):
Insufficient amount at the quantitation step, so I could not continue with developing a DNA profile.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:38:29):
All right. Now, you also did some analysis on 9-1, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:38:36):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:38:37):
Well, 9-1, that was a cutting from boxer shorts?
Shane Wilcox (05:38:43):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:38:43):
Did you do the cuttings or did somebody else do the cuttings?
Shane Wilcox (05:38:45):
Somebody else did the cuttings.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:38:46):
And what are you doing then?
Shane Wilcox (05:38:48):
I believe I'm just comparing standards to a previously run sample.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:38:53):
All right. And what were your findings?
Shane Wilcox (05:39:00):
I was able to include the DNA profiles from Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, and Larry Huggins from the mixture profile.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:39:11):
Did you change anybody's DNA in Kristen Meyer's report or findings?
Shane Wilcox (05:39:19):
Whoever ran it, I did not change the initial interpretation.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:39:23):
All right. So it's still a mixture of four?
Shane Wilcox (05:39:25):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:39:26):
And components two, three, and four are inconclusive due to insufficient quality?
Shane Wilcox (05:39:30):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:39:31):
How about 9-2 and 11? So let's start with 9-2.
Shane Wilcox (05:39:36):
9-2 is a cutting from the boxer shorts.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:39:41):
Okay. And 11?
Shane Wilcox (05:39:46):
11 is a swabbing from the phone charger cord.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:39:50):
And you didn't do either the swabbing nor the cutting, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:39:52):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:39:53):
And what were your findings for this?
Shane Wilcox (05:39:55):
So those profiles are being interpreted as a mixture of two contributors. DNA profiles from Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, and Larry Huggins are excluded as contributors to the interpretable components of the mixtures. Component two of these mixtures are inconclusive.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:40:16):
Let me ask you this, is the lab required to run new profiles against all evidence, even if you determine the contributors already?
Shane Wilcox (05:40:25):
Yes. Anytime we get a new standard, we run it against any integral component from old.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:40:32):
And did you change Kristen Meyer's findings from 9-2 and 11?
Shane Wilcox (05:40:38):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:40:38):
All right. Let's go to item 10-1. What is 10-1?
Shane Wilcox (05:40:45):
10-1 is a swabbing from the earbuds.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:40:50):
Did you do the swabbings from the earbuds?
Shane Wilcox (05:40:51):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:40:53):
Did you do any new swabbings from the earbuds?
Shane Wilcox (05:40:56):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:40:57):
And did you have any conclusions or findings from rerunning... Well, let me ask you, what were you asked to do on the earbuds, 10-1?
Shane Wilcox (05:41:08):
So that profile that was originally developed and interpreted was... The data was taken and put into STRmix, the new interpretation software. And then I did the comparisons based on that new data.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:41:23):
And what were your findings?
Shane Wilcox (05:41:25):
So the DNA profile obtained from the swabbings from the earbuds is being interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. The DNA profiles obtained from David Prevatte and Paitin Fields are included as possible contributors to the interpretable components of the mixture. The DNA profiles obtained from Dale Hunt, Jamie Sykes, Hailey Fawcett, Melissa Brown, Michael Hall, Jordan Swenson, and Larry Huggins are excluded as contributors to the interpretable components of this mixture. No conclusion can be rendered as to the contribution of the DNA profiles from Lisa Hunt and Savannah Fields due to insufficient quality. Component three of the mixture is inconclusive.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:42:09):
Did you run a statistical analysis of this?
Shane Wilcox (05:42:12):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:42:13):
What was your statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (05:42:15):
So the first statistic ran was hypothesis one, the evidence originated from David Prevatte and two unknown, unrelated individuals. Or hypothesis two, the evidence originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. The statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte as contributor one of the mixture profile. The DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the earbuds is at least 4.74 octillion times more likely if it originated from David Prevatte and two unknown, unrelated individuals, than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals.
(05:43:32)
The second statistic run was for the inclusion of the DNA profile from Paitin Fields. So hypothesis one, the evidence originated from Paitin Fields and two unknown, unrelated individuals. Versus hypothesis two, the evidence originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. The statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile from Paitin Fields as contributor two of this mixture profile. So the statistic for that was the DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the earbuds is at least 1.61 billion times more likely if it originated from Paitin Fields and two unknown, unrelated individuals, than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:43:33):
Did you manipulate or did you redo anything with 10-1? Did you handle 10-1? Did you do anything like that?
Shane Wilcox (05:43:45):
I strictly used the data that was in our Forensic Advantage system, digital data.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:43:50):
So unlike the other ones we just went over in items number 8-1, 8-2, 9-1, 9-2, and 11, we do have an additional profile that was able to be identified based upon the new STRmix, correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:44:06):
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:44:10):
Kristen Meyer's findings for 10-1 were interpreted as a mixture of three contributors and David Prevatte was included as a contributor, still two unknowns.
Shane Wilcox (05:44:28):
Okay.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:44:29):
You run yours and return it June 9th, 2021, running it against STRmix, you still find David Prevatte as a contributor and now you've included Paitin Fields as a contributor and you still have an unknown number three, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:44:46):
Correct. When I ran the profile components one and component two were interpretable and then component three was inconclusive.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:44:55):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge Jensen (05:44:57):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:45:05):
I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 102. 102 says what?
Shane Wilcox (05:45:06):
State's 102 is laboratory item number 10-1, swabbing from red earbuds.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:45:39):
I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 43. 43 says what?
Shane Wilcox (05:45:45):
State's 43 is...
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:45:46):
I'm sorry.
Shane Wilcox (05:45:47):
Laboratory item 10, red earbuds.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:45:48):
You found in 2021 that both David Prevatte and Paitin Fields were possible contributors to the DNA profiles on 10-1, which was a swabbing of the red ear buds lab item number 10. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:46:34):
I was able to get a inclusionary statistic for the DNA profiles obtained from David Prevatte and Paitin Fields to the mixture profile.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:46:42):
Thank you. Now let's go and let's continue on because you continued your analysis, correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:46:54):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:47:27):
Did you also analyze 16-1?
Shane Wilcox (05:47:32):
I made comparisons to the new standards that were submitted to the previous profile from 16-1.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:47:38):
Because you had previously in your case record eight had done the cuttings and the analysis against the old, excuse me, the older profiles that you guys had at the lab. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:47:53):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:47:54):
Did you use STRmix in case record eight?
Shane Wilcox (05:47:58):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:47:58):
So you started using STRmix when you entered this case?
Shane Wilcox (05:48:02):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:48:02):
All right. So then for 16-1 and 16-2, you weren't rerunning them against old profiles, you were rerunning them against Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields and Larry Huggins?
Shane Wilcox (05:48:14):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:48:15):
So what were your findings as to 16-1 and 16-2?
Shane Wilcox (05:48:20):
So for 16-1 and 16-2, I was able to exclude the profiles from Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, and Larry Huggins from both of those profiles.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:48:31):
Okay. And then as to 18, did you analyze in case record nine item 18?
Shane Wilcox (05:48:43):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:48:44):
What was 18?
Shane Wilcox (05:48:46):
18 was a STRmix interpretation of old data.
Court Reporter (05:48:52):
STRmix what?
Shane Wilcox (05:48:52):
Interpretation of old data.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:48:54):
So were you running them against older profiles also?
Shane Wilcox (05:48:58):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:48:59):
All right. And then what were your findings as to item number 18?
Shane Wilcox (05:49:07):
The DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the Christmas lights cord is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. The DNA profiles from Savannah Fields and Paitin Fields are included as possible contributors to the interpretable components of the mixture. DNA profiles obtained from David Prevatte, Dale Hunt, Jamie Sykes, Hailey Fawcett, Melissa Brown, Michael Hall, Lisa Hunt, Jordan Swenson, and Larry Huggins are excluded as contributors to the interpretable components of this mixture. Components three and four of this mixture are inconclusive due to an insufficient quality of recovered DNA.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:49:45):
What was your statistical analysis for this?
Shane Wilcox (05:49:49):
So the statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from Savannah Fields as contributor one for this mixture. And using those same hypothesis, the DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the Christmas light's cord is at least 50-
Shane Wilcox (05:50:00):
... obtained from the swabbing from the Christmas lights cord is at least 55.7 octillion times more likely if it originated from Savannah Fields and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals. For the DNA statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from Paitin Fields as contributor two of the mixture. The DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the Christmas lights cord is at least 16 sextillion times more likely if it originated from Paitin Fields and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:50:44):
Did you also go back and look at item 19?
Shane Wilcox (05:50:47):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:50:47):
What is item 19?
Shane Wilcox (05:50:53):
Swabbing of hot glue gun cord.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:50:57):
Did you go and handle it and re-swab it or was this a swab that was already in the system?
Shane Wilcox (05:51:01):
It was already in the system.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:51:02):
All right. And what was your analysis on this?
Shane Wilcox (05:51:05):
Profile is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. The DNA profile obtained from Savannah Fields is included as a possible contributor to the integral component of this mixture. DNA profiles obtained from Jordan Swenson, Larry Huggins are excluded as contributors to the interpretable component of this mixture. Components two, three, and four of the mixture are inconclusive due to an insufficient quality of recovered DNA. Can't make comparisons on those. The statistical calculation for that, hypothesis one, evidence originated from Savannah Fields and three unknown unrelated individuals versus hypothesis two, the evidence originated from four unknown unrelated individuals. Specific calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from Savannah Fields as contributor one of the mixture. The DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the hot glue gun cord is at least 517 octillion times more likely if it originated from Savannah Fields and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:52:14):
Item 20, specifically items 20-1, -2, -3. Did you perform any analysis on these?
Shane Wilcox (05:52:26):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:52:26):
And let's start with 20-1. What were your findings?
Shane Wilcox (05:52:33):
The cutting from the pillowcase is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. DNA profile obtained from Savannah Fields is included as a possible contributor to the interpretable components of this mixture. The DNA profiles from Jordan Swenson and Larry Huggins are excluded as contributors to the interpretable components of this mixture.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:52:55):
Statistical analysis.
Shane Wilcox (05:52:57):
So again, using the same hypothesis, Savannah Fields and three unknowns versus four unknowns, the statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile from Savannah Fields as contributor one of the mixture. This profile is at least 28 sextillion times more likely if it originated from Savannah Fields and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:53:24):
20-, 20-2.
Shane Wilcox (05:53:29):
The DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the pillowcase is being interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. The DNA profile obtained from Savannah Fields is included as a possible contributor to the interpretable component of this mixture. I was able to exclude the profiles from Jordan Swenson, Larry Huggins from the interpretal component of the mixture.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:53:52):
Now you... Well, let me get to 20-3 and we'll discuss all the 20s. 20-3, what were your findings in 20-3?
Shane Wilcox (05:54:04):
The DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the pillowcase, 20-3 is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. DNA profile obtained from Savannah Fields is included as a possible contributor to the interpretable component of the mixture. The DNA profiles from Jordan Swenson and Larry Huggins, I was able to exclude from that integral component.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:54:24):
And statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (05:54:30):
Again, how about this one, the inclusion of the DNA profile from Savannah Fields versus unknowns. The calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from Savannah Fields as contributor one to the mixture. So the statistic for that, 316 octillion times more likely if it originated from Savannah Fields and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:54:56):
So back in your Case Record 8, you went through and did the cuttings and they were 20-1, 20-2, 20-3. And it looks like you did not have Savannah Fields' profile in Case Record 8, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:55:15):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:55:15):
So you found in 20-1 in your earlier analysis in the previous record that for 20-1, a mixture of four contains at least one male contributor that the DNA profile obtained from Paitin Fields was included as a possible contributor. And then when you ran it against Savannah Fields in record 9, you've added Savannah Fields as a possible contributor two. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:55:44):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:55:45):
And the same with 20-2, which you had a mixture of three and you had a DNA profile for contributor one from an unknown contributor, fast-forward to your Case Record 9, you obtained a profile from [inaudible 05:56:08] her as a possible contributor to 20-2, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:56:12):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:56:12):
And then 20-3 from your previous same thing. You had an unknown. Fast-forward to your Case Record 9, you have Savannah Fields' profile now and you found that she was a possible contributor to 20-3. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:56:29):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:56:30):
So let's go to 28. 28, item number 28 was what?
Shane Wilcox (05:56:42):
A swab from couch cushion.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:56:44):
Okay. What were your findings, if any?
Shane Wilcox (05:56:47):
The DNA profile obtained from the swab from the couch cushion is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. The DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte is included as a possible contributor to the interpretable components of this mixture. The DNA profile obtained from Michael Hall is excluded as a contributor to the interpretable components of this mixture. No conclusions can be rendered to the contributions of the DNA profiles from Dale Hunt, Paitin Fields, Jamie Sykes, Haley Fawcett, Melissa Brown, Lisa Hunt, Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields and Larry Huggins due to insufficient quality. Components three and four are inconclusive for that profile.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:57:30):
And your statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (05:57:34):
The statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte as contributor two to this mixture. The DNA profile obtained from the swab from the couch cushion is at least 445,000 times more likely if it originated from David Prevatte and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:57:58):
This came... This piece of evidence, item number 28, came to you as a swab from law enforcement. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:58:04):
I do not believe that I worked item 28.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:58:13):
But you ran it against all profiles from original profiles to the new profiles, correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:58:21):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:58:24):
All right. Before our break, let's do two more please. Item number 29, what is item number 29?
Shane Wilcox (05:58:33):
Swab from the underwear.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:58:35):
That's the red underwear that you previously testified to about in record level eight, Case Record 8, correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:58:44):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:58:44):
And did you run it against the new profiles that Swenson, Savannah Fields and Larry Huggins?
Shane Wilcox (05:58:51):
I did.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:58:51):
What were your findings?
Shane Wilcox (05:58:52):
I was able to exclude all of them.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:58:54):
All right. You've made a previous finding in Case Record 8, is that correct? Where Lisa Hunt and... Would it help to have instead of flipping back and forth to actual summary? May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:59:13):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:59:14):
I'm want to show you what's been previously admitted as 110. 110 is your Case Record 8, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:59:23):
It is.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:59:25):
All right. So the previous findings from item 29 were Lisa attributable to... Or Lisa Hunt and Dale Hunt were included in possible contributors to item 29. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (05:59:41):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:59:42):
And now you just ran it against new people, you excluded it?
Shane Wilcox (05:59:44):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:59:45):
All right. 30-1. What is 30-1?
Shane Wilcox (05:59:47):
30-1 is a cutting from the shirt.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (05:59:52):
And did you do the cutting or was this previously cut?
Shane Wilcox (06:00:00):
This is a cutting that I took.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:00:02):
All right. And what were your findings?
Shane Wilcox (06:00:07):
I was able to exclude the DNA profiles from Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, and Larry Huggins to the interpretal component of the mixture.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:00:15):
Which shirt was that?
Shane Wilcox (06:00:19):
The blue pony shirt.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:00:21):
Thank you.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:00:24):
Now, again, when you're rerunning these, you're running all these new... This star mix against the older profiles from previous analysis and the new profiles from new submissions, you're running them against the interpretable components of any piece of evidence, is that right?
Shane Wilcox (06:00:48):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:00:50):
Judge, good time to take a break.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:00:52):
All right. Members of the jury, go ahead and close up your notebooks. Remember, do not discuss this case amongst yourselves. Do not discuss this case with anybody else. Do not have any contact with any of the parties, attorneys, or witnesses. Do not conduct your own independent investigation and do not post on any social media sites. We'll excuse you for about 15 minutes.
Speaker 9 (06:01:16):
Thank you, Your Honor. You may [inaudible 06:01:16] your chair and when ready, front row, then back, this way.
Speaker 10 (06:01:19):
The jury's left court, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:01:53):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has exited the courtroom. Mr. Wilcox, you may step down.
Shane Wilcox (06:02:02):
Can I leave this here?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:02:03):
Yes. Anything discussed on behalf of the defense-
Speaker 9 (06:02:17):
Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:02:17):
... on behalf of the state.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:02:17):
[inaudible 06:02:18].
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:02:19):
We'll be at ease for the next 15 minutes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:02:21):
Court will be at ease for 15 minutes.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:16:18):
All right, we're back on the record. Anything we need to discuss on behalf of the state?
Speaker 9 (06:16:23):
No, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:16:24):
On behalf of the defense?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:16:24):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:16:25):
Bring our jury back in. Oh, hold on.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:16:29):
By the time they line up, Judge, they're ready. Nevermind. I would ask that if we're pushing five, we continue on. We're taking tomorrow off so Mr. Wilcox doesn't have to come on Monday.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:16:42):
I agree. Yeah, we can finish-
Speaker 9 (06:16:43):
That is not a problem.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:16:44):
We can finish with his testimony today. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 9 (06:16:48):
Bring in the jury.
Speaker 10 (06:17:28):
And the jury's seated, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:17:29):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has reentered the courtroom. All right, Mr. Smith, you may continue.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:17:46):
Thank you. Mr. Wilcox, we're going to continue with your Case Record 9. And item... Did you do any analysis on item 34?
Shane Wilcox (06:18:01):
I did. I took two swabbings from item 34.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:18:03):
Okay. As to... Well, strike that. Let's go back. 32. Item 32 was the belt, correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:18:22):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:18:23):
And previously, you analyzed the belt in Case Record 8. And in Case Record 9, what analysis, if any, are you doing on the belt item 32?
Shane Wilcox (06:18:35):
I compared the DNA profiles from Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, and Larry Huggins, and I was able to exclude them from the interpretable components of the mixture.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:18:43):
And it did not change your findings from Case Record 8 regarding the possible contributors to item 32?
Shane Wilcox (06:18:54):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:18:56):
As to item 34, that is a pair of dicky pants, correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:19:03):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:19:04):
And did you do a swabbing or did another analyst do the swabbing?
Shane Wilcox (06:19:11):
I took the swabbings.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:19:13):
And first of all, what kind of analysis were you asked to do? What kind of analysis did you do regarding item 34? And then we'll talk about your findings.
Shane Wilcox (06:19:27):
Just a swabbing for DNA.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:19:30):
Okay. You didn't analyze them for any body fluid, semen, blood, or anything like that?
Shane Wilcox (06:19:37):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:19:37):
But why not?
Shane Wilcox (06:19:39):
In this case record, I believe I was contacted and requested for specific areas of the pants to be swabbed.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:19:45):
Okay. And you didn't do any cuttings?
Shane Wilcox (06:19:49):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:19:50):
And why would you have not done cuttings on these pants?
Shane Wilcox (06:19:53):
Again, I'm looking to collect potential skin cells from a larger surface area or any other source of DNA from a larger surface area versus taking a smaller cutting from one very specific area.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:20:09):
Let's talk about your observations regarding item 34. Do you remember any observations you made about item 34?
Shane Wilcox (06:20:18):
Just looking at the picture, they are a pair of tan khaki-ish pants with some staining on the front.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:20:25):
All right. And you were asked to swab or you did swab these pants. How did you determine what areas of the pants to swab?
Shane Wilcox (06:20:37):
I don't remember the specifics for this item, but a swabbing was taken from the interior waistband and the interior portions of the fly/zipper. And that's more to see if there was any potential transfer of a foreign DNA profile from an individual wearing the pants in that area of the pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:20:58):
All right. And when you talk about swabbing an interior waistband, how would you go about doing that?
Shane Wilcox (06:21:06):
I would take a sterile cotton swab, add that sterile water, and then swab the interior part of the waistband. So the part that is the top part around the pants that goes around your waist.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:21:21):
All the way around?
Shane Wilcox (06:21:23):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:21:23):
All right. Permission to publish State's Exhibit 109, specifically Case Record 9, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:21:31):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:21:38):
Mr. Wilcox, can you see the television screen?
Shane Wilcox (06:21:40):
I can.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:21:41):
I'm going to take you to your page 236 of your Case Record 9. What are we looking at in this picture?
Shane Wilcox (06:21:50):
It's a photograph of item 34, the pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:21:54):
All right. And the waistband of a pants has some thickness or width to it, correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:22:01):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:22:03):
And when you're swabbing, are you swabbing everywhere around or are you just swabbing the top portion, bottom portion or middle portion?
Shane Wilcox (06:22:10):
So for me, the waistband means that portion at the top, it's about an inch or two inches. That is the top part of the pants that goes all the way around. That part that contains the button and parts of the pelt loots.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:22:25):
And on this particular 34-1, which was your swabbing of the interior waistband, it's the interior, as the word says, interior, it's not the exterior. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:22:37):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:22:37):
And as to other swabbings, what did you say you swabbed again?
Shane Wilcox (06:22:46):
The interior portions of the zipper/fly area.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:22:49):
All right. And that may mean different things for different people. How did you refer to it? Or when you refer to interior portions of the zipper fly, what do you mean?
Shane Wilcox (06:23:02):
For me, that is when the zipper is closed, is the genital region around and including the zipper area.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:23:10):
All right. For Case Record 9, are those the only two swabbings that you did on this item number 34?
Shane Wilcox (06:23:19):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:23:20):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:23:21):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:23:22):
Previously you testified and identified item number 34, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:23:28):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:23:29):
I'm going to ask that you [inaudible 06:23:30]. I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 39, what's been previously admitted as State's Exhibit 39. And you previously identified it as a bag that had been repackaged, and inside that repackaged bag was also a bag to the state crime lab label and you identified it as State's Exhibit 39 or 34, correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:24:28):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:24:28):
All right. And inside this bag is what?
Shane Wilcox (06:24:32):
The pair of tan pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:24:35):
All right. And I'm going to take them out and ask permission to publish to the jury State's Exhibit 39, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:24:47):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:24:48):
And can I have the witness step down?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:24:51):
Sir, you may step down.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:24:57):
May I reposition?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:24:58):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:25:01):
All right. Mr...
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:25:00):
All right. Mr. Wilcox, can you show these ... Where you swabbed on the inside of this waistband?
Shane Wilcox (06:25:10):
So for the swabbing that was 34-1, the interior of the waistband, it would be this section here, all the way around on the inside portion of the pair of pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:25:22):
All right. And let's talk about, you said the interior fly section of these pants. Where did you swab on the interior? And you can ...
Shane Wilcox (06:25:34):
So imagining that these are closed, I would've swabbed this vertical piece of fabric here, including these small areas around the sides. And then this portion here that would be on the inside when the zipper is closed.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:25:48):
And that was one swab?
Shane Wilcox (06:25:50):
One swab.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:25:51):
So that interior fly area is, I don't know, an estimated, I don't know, eight or nine inches, you would say?
Shane Wilcox (06:26:02):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:26:03):
And did you start from one end and go to the other?
Shane Wilcox (06:26:07):
I couldn't tell you where I started, but I can say it's a rough swabbing on the entire surface of the area that I'm looking for.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:26:13):
All right. And then at that point in time, you did what with 34-1 and 34-2?
Shane Wilcox (06:26:23):
Ran a DNA analysis on the swabs that were taken from [inaudible 06:26:26].
Speaker 11 (06:26:26):
What kind of analysis?
Shane Wilcox (06:26:27):
DNA analysis.
Speaker 11 (06:26:28):
Thank you.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:26:28):
Thank you. You can take [inaudible 06:26:30]. Let's start with 34-1. What were your findings, if any?
Shane Wilcox (06:27:03):
The DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the waistband of the pants is being interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. The DNA profiles obtained from David Prevatte, Paitin Fields and Haley Fawcett are included as possible contributors to this mixture. The DNA profiles obtained from Dale Hunt, Jamie Sykes, Melissa Brown, Michael Hall, Lisa Hunt, Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, and Larry Huggins are excluded as contributors to the mixture.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:27:32):
What was your statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (06:27:36):
The statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte as contributor one for this mixture. The DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the waistband of the pants is at least 727 septillion times more likely if it originated from David Prevatte and two unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. And then running the same hypothesis for the inclusion of the DNA standard from Paitin Fields, the statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile from Paitin Fields as contributor two of this mixture. That was at least 3.83 quintillion times more likely if it originated from Paitin Fields and two unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. And the hypothesis for Haley Fawcett's inclusion, these statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from Haley Fawcett as contributor three to this mixture profile. So the DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the waistband of pants is at least one quadrillion times more likely if it originated from Haley Fawcett and two unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:28:56):
What about 34-2?
Shane Wilcox (06:29:01):
34-2, the swab from the interior zipper area of the pants is being interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. The DNA profiles obtained from David Prevatte, Paitin Fields are included as possible contributors to the interpretable components of this mixture. The DNA profiles from Dale Hunt, Jamie Sykes, Haley Fawcett, Melissa Brown, Michael Hall, Lisa Hunt, Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields and Larry Huggins are excluded as contributors to the interpretable components of this mixture. And then a component of this mixture was inconclusive. I could not make comparisons to that.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:29:38):
What was your statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (06:29:41):
The statistical calculations using those two hypothesis best fit the DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte as contributor one of this mixture profile. The DNA profile obtained from the interior zipper area of the pants is at least 36.8 septillion times more likely if it originated from David Prevatte and two unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. And then for the standard from Paitin Fields, these statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from Paitin Fields as contributor two of this mixture profile. The DNA profile obtained is at least 684 quintillion times more likely if it originated from Paitin Fields and two unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:30:35):
And item 38, did you do any analysis of ... Well, strike that. Item 38 is what?
Shane Wilcox (06:30:49):
A nylon rope bracelet.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:30:53):
And what, if any, analysis did you do with item 38?
Shane Wilcox (06:30:57):
I took a swabbing from the entire surface of the nylon rope bracelet, ran it through DNA, got to the quantitation step and there was not enough DNA to continue with the process.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:31:08):
Item 39, what is item 39?
Shane Wilcox (06:31:13):
Item 39 is a MVAC filter.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:31:13):
Do you know what an MVAC filter is?
Shane Wilcox (06:31:21):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:31:24):
Do you at the state crime lab do any MVACing or anything like that of evidence?
Shane Wilcox (06:31:28):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:31:30):
Are you familiar with the process?
Shane Wilcox (06:31:31):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:31:33):
Have you been trained on the process?
Shane Wilcox (06:31:34):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:31:35):
How are you familiar with the process?
Shane Wilcox (06:31:37):
Just in a general, through a presentation of what it does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:31:44):
Let's talk generally about what an MVAC is.
Shane Wilcox (06:31:48):
From my understanding, a surface is either ... Liquid is either added to a surface or a surface is vacuum sucked dry using a vacuum basically, and all of the material from that suction is passed through a capsule that contains a filter and that filter could contain DNA and whatever else is sucked into the vacuum.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:32:12):
All right. And as to item 39, do you know what the MVAC filter was ... What was vacuumed or what was it used for?
Shane Wilcox (06:32:24):
I do not have any notes that I can see here that show what it was from.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:32:29):
All right. Did you or did somebody else do a swabbing and cutting for the MVAC filter?
Shane Wilcox (06:32:36):
I did a swabbing and cutting from the filter.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:32:39):
I'm going to take you to State's Exhibit 109 and your page 238. What are we looking at on page 238?
Shane Wilcox (06:32:53):
So the circular dark area is that filter that starts out white, I believe. And then the material that is sucked into the filter from the surface of what they are attempting to collect DNA from ends up there on that filter.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:33:08):
So let me get this straight. This MVAC filter was sent to you, meaning to the crime lab, it was not done at the crime lab. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:33:17):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:33:17):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge (06:33:18):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:33:24):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as ... Or strike that, as admitted as State's Exhibit 69. Do you recognize 69?
Shane Wilcox (06:33:34):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:33:34):
And what is 69?
Shane Wilcox (06:33:35):
State's 69 is laboratory item number 39, and it's identified as MVAC filter seized from brown cloth belt, item 34.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:33:44):
All right. Can you open that up?
(06:33:59)
Do you recognize what 69 contains?
Shane Wilcox (06:34:04):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:34:05):
What is 69?
Shane Wilcox (06:34:06):
It is the MVAC filter cartridge with the filter.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:34:10):
Do you need gloves or is it ...
Shane Wilcox (06:34:15):
I can see it.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:34:16):
Okay. Can you take it out?
Shane Wilcox (06:34:17):
Sure.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:34:19):
Permission to publish 69, Judge?
Judge (06:34:24):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:34:26):
And again, go ahead. And can you hold it up for the jury, please? So as we're looking at that picture, you see the brown ... You described it as a brown filter on the red side of that contraption, correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:34:46):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:34:47):
And what do you believe to be that brown filter, what do you believe that to be?
Shane Wilcox (06:34:54):
This is the MVAC filter. So I took a swabbing from the filter and I usually do the inside surface of the canister and then took a cutting. So I don't know if you can see there's a cutting from that red circle that is put into the DNA process.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:35:12):
In our picture on the TV, that red circle is complete, correct? It-
Shane Wilcox (06:35:15):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:35:16):
... Whole.
Shane Wilcox (06:35:16):
It's prior to me cutting the filter.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:35:19):
And then you just cut the filter out?
Shane Wilcox (06:35:20):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:35:21):
So you did a swabbing and a cutting?
Shane Wilcox (06:35:23):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:35:23):
All right. Thank you. Did you analyze the swabbing and the cutting together or did you analyze them separately?
Shane Wilcox (06:35:50):
Together.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:35:51):
All right. Is that normal when dealing with an MVAC filter, do you know?
Shane Wilcox (06:35:57):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:35:58):
All right. And what were your findings, if any?
Shane Wilcox (06:36:01):
The profile obtained from the swabbing and cutting of the MVAC filter is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. The DNA profiles obtained from David Prevatte, Haley Fawcett, are included as possible contributors to the interpretable components of this mixture. The DNA profiles obtained from Dale Hunt, Paitin Fields, Jamie Sykes, Melissa Brown, Michael Hall, Lisa Hunt, Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, and Larry Huggins are excluded as contributors to the interpretable components of the mixture. Components three and four are inconclusive for this mixture.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:36:35):
What was your statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (06:36:39):
The statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from Haley Fawcett as contributor one to this mixture. So the DNA profile is at least 10 septillion times more likely if it originated from Haley Fawcett and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals. And these statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte as contributor two of this mixture. The DNA profile is at least 177 quadrillion times more likely if it originated from David Prevatte and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:37:20):
Did this conclude your analysis for case record nine?
Shane Wilcox (06:37:27):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:37:27):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge (06:37:28):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:37:29):
Did you reduce this again to a laboratory report, specifically a summary of your findings?
Shane Wilcox (06:37:36):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:37:36):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 111 for identification purposes. Do you recognize 111?
Shane Wilcox (06:37:46):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:37:47):
And what is 111?
Shane Wilcox (06:37:48):
It is a copy of the laboratory summary report that I produced for this case record in this case.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:37:54):
And does it contain your signature?
Shane Wilcox (06:37:56):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:37:57):
Has it been altered or modified in any way?
Shane Wilcox (06:37:59):
It does not appear to be.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:38:01):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 111.
Judge (06:38:02):
Any objection?
Speaker 12 (06:38:03):
No, sir.
Judge (06:38:04):
State's Exhibit 111 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:38:07):
Permission to publish?
Judge (06:38:08):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:38:15):
Mr. Wilcox, can you see State's Exhibit 111?
Shane Wilcox (06:38:18):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:38:19):
This is your lab report summary of what you've been testifying about as to your case record nine.
Shane Wilcox (06:38:26):
It is.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:38:27):
It was released on June 9th, 2021?
Shane Wilcox (06:38:31):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:38:33):
Contains your signature?
Shane Wilcox (06:38:34):
It does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:38:35):
Contains the items that you analyzed, including your standards?
Shane Wilcox (06:38:42):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:38:46):
And it's approximately nine pages long?
Shane Wilcox (06:38:50):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:38:55):
All right. You testified previously that you prepared ... Strike that. You also were asked to analyze some items and produced a case record 10, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:39:16):
That's correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:39:17):
All right. Tell us, what did you analyze, if anything, in 10?
Shane Wilcox (06:39:32):
Case record 10 had 2 more swabbings taken from laboratory item 34, which were those tan dicky pants, a swabbing from the exterior zipper area of the pants, and a swabbing from the exterior thighs of the pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:39:48):
And what standards did you compare those new swabbings to?
Shane Wilcox (06:39:54):
All of the previous standards.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:39:55):
So David Prevatte?
Shane Wilcox (06:39:58):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:39:58):
Dale Hunt, Paitin Fields?
Shane Wilcox (06:39:59):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:40:00):
Jamie Sykes, Haley Fawcett, Melissa Brown, Michael Hall?
Shane Wilcox (06:40:05):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:40:05):
Lisa Hunt?
Shane Wilcox (06:40:07):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:40:08):
Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, and Larry Huggins?
Shane Wilcox (06:40:11):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:40:16):
Permission to publish State's Exhibit 109, specifically case record 10.
Judge (06:40:22):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:40:25):
The only thing that you did with case record 10 was 2 more swabbings of item number 34, the Dickies pants?
Shane Wilcox (06:40:34):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:40:35):
And why did you do that?
Shane Wilcox (06:40:36):
I was requested to swab more areas of the pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:40:40):
All right. And those areas that you swabbed were what?
Shane Wilcox (06:40:44):
The exterior zipper portion of the pants and the thigh, upper thigh area of the pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:40:50):
I'm going to take you to your report. Do you have your case record 10 in front of you?
Shane Wilcox (06:40:55):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:40:56):
I'm going to take you to your page 146 of your case record 10 report. Mr. Wilcox, do you see page 146 of case record 10?
Shane Wilcox (06:41:33):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:41:34):
And what are we looking at?
Shane Wilcox (06:41:36):
It's a photograph of item 34, the pants, and it's areas that I swabbed for this specific case record.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:41:43):
If I can take you to the left pant leg, it appears in the photograph that there's a hole in that leg. Does that appear to you? Also, let me zoom in a little bit. Maybe you can see it. A couple holes, actually.
Shane Wilcox (06:41:57):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:41:57):
Did you create those holes?
Shane Wilcox (06:42:04):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:42:04):
Or anything like that? All right.
Speaker 11 (06:42:04):
Was that a no?
Shane Wilcox (06:42:04):
That was a no.
Speaker 11 (06:42:04):
Thank you.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:42:04):
All right. So you said you swabbed exterior zipper area of the pants, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:42:14):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:42:15):
How did you do that?
Shane Wilcox (06:42:16):
Same process I used for the previous swabbings of these pants, sterile swab, sterile water, rubbed it on that area that is circled on the photo.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:42:25):
Did you button the pants, zip up the pants, and then swab, or did you swab it with the pants unbuttoned and unzipped?
Shane Wilcox (06:42:33):
Unbuttoned and unzipped. However, sticking to the outside, so the left side of the zipper and the outside portion of the fly.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:42:46):
Did you swab this area of the outside zipper area, meaning the flap that does not contain a zipper on the outside?
Shane Wilcox (06:42:55):
If you were to have the pants closed, it was the exterior portion of that surface that was swabbed.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:43:00):
If you would open up this flap, would you have swabbed anything if you opened up that flap?
Shane Wilcox (06:43:08):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:43:08):
All right. So you didn't swab any of this area right here, correct? The zipper part on the right side?
Shane Wilcox (06:43:15):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:43:17):
And then you labeled that as what in your report?
Shane Wilcox (06:43:23):
Item 34-3.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:43:26):
All right. And then you said in your testimony that you swabbed the exterior thighs of the pants, correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:43:33):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:43:33):
And how did you do that?
Shane Wilcox (06:43:35):
Same process. Again, the areas you can see, the two outlined areas on the upper thigh area, same process, one swab over the surface of those pants.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:43:46):
And again, did you just go all ... You draw two rectangles on the thighs. Those are the areas that you just did a drill swabbing on each side?
Shane Wilcox (06:43:55):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:43:55):
One swab or multiple swabs?
Shane Wilcox (06:43:57):
I believe it was one swab.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:43:59):
All right. So you go and swab maybe the left side and then you go to the right side with the same swab as well?
Shane Wilcox (06:44:03):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:44:04):
And you labeled that as what in case record 10?
Shane Wilcox (06:44:08):
34-4.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:44:11):
All right. And that's the only analysis that you completed for case record 10 was 34-3, 34-4, and compared it to the standards previously testified to?
Shane Wilcox (06:44:22):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:44:23):
All right. And let's start with 34-3. What were your findings, if any?
Shane Wilcox (06:44:28):
The profile obtained from the swabbing from the exterior zipper area of the pants is being interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. The DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte and Paitin Fields are included as possible contributors to the interpretable components of this mixture. All of those other DNA profiles in the case, I was able to exclude from the interpretable components of the mixture, and component three is inconclusive.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:44:53):
And what was your statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (06:44:56):
So for hypothesis one, the evidence originated from David Prevatte, Paitin Fields, and an unknown unrelated individual. Or hypothesis two, the evidence originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. The statistical calculation best fit the DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte as contributor one and Paitin Fields as contributor two. So the DNA profile is at least 67.8 quattuordecillion times more likely if it originated from David Prevatte, Paitin Fields, and an unknown unrelated individual than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:45:34):
And as to 34-4, what were your findings, if any?
Shane Wilcox (06:45:38):
The profile generated from the swabbing from the exterior thighs of the pants is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors. The DNA profiles obtained from David Prevatte and Paitin Fields are included as possible contributors to the interpretable components of this mixture. I was able to exclude all of the other standards that we've talked about in this case, and components three and component four of the mixture are inconclusive, so I was not able to make comparison to those components.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:46:08):
And what was your statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (06:46:10):
Hypothesis one, the evidence originated from David Prevatte, Paitin Fields, and two unknown unrelated individuals. For, hypothesis two, the evidence originated from four unknown unrelated individuals. The statistical calculations best fit the DNA profile obtained from David Prevatte as contributor one and Paitin Fields as contributor two. So the DNA profile is at least 4.35 undecillion times more likely if it originated from David Prevatte, Paitin Fields, and two unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:46:47):
Did you perform any additional analysis for case record 10?
Shane Wilcox (06:46:51):
No.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:46:52):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge (06:46:52):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:46:57):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 112. For identification purposes, do you recognize State's Exhibit 112?
Shane Wilcox (06:47:04):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:47:05):
And what is 112?
Shane Wilcox (06:47:06):
State's 112 is the laboratory summary report of this case record.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:47:10):
And does it contain your signature?
Shane Wilcox (06:47:12):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:47:13):
Has it been altered or edited in any way?
Shane Wilcox (06:47:16):
It does not appear to be.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:47:17):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 112.
Judge (06:47:19):
Any objection?
Speaker 12 (06:47:20):
No, sir.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:47:20):
Permission to publish.
Judge (06:47:22):
State's Exhibit 112 will be admitted into evidence. You may publish.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:47:30):
Mr. Wilcox, does this appear to be State's Exhibit 112?
Shane Wilcox (06:47:33):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:47:34):
Your case record 10?
Shane Wilcox (06:47:35):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:47:35):
It was released on what date?
Shane Wilcox (06:47:39):
July 13th, 2021.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:47:41):
And it appears to be three pages long, correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:47:46):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:47:47):
Signed by you and it contains your findings with regards to what you just previously testified to for 34-3 and 34-4?
Shane Wilcox (06:47:55):
It does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:48:02):
You previously testified that you also completed additional analysis and recorded your findings on a case record 11, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:48:11):
I did.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:48:12):
All right. For case record 11, what did you analyze?
Shane Wilcox (06:48:25):
Item 15, a paper bag containing a pink child's blanket.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:48:35):
And what analysis, if any, to item 15 did you do?
Shane Wilcox (06:48:42):
So for item 15, I did the Kastle-Meyer test, the presumptive test for blood, and there were areas on that item that gave chemical indications for the presence of blood, again, presumptively. And then I took three cuttings for DNA.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:49:01):
Is this the only analysis for case record 11, did you ... Strike that. Is this the only analysis or only item of evidence that you analyzed in case record 11?
Shane Wilcox (06:49:15):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:49:16):
And did you run them against the previous standards for David Prevatte, Dale Hunt, Paitin Fields, Jamie Sykes, Haley Fawcett, Melissa Brown, Michael Hall, Lisa Hunt, Jordan Swenson, Savannah Fields, and Larry Huggins?
Shane Wilcox (06:49:33):
I did.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:49:36):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge (06:49:42):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:49:42):
I'm going to show you what's been previously admitted as 52. Do you recognize 52?
Shane Wilcox (06:49:48):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:49:48):
And what is 52?
Shane Wilcox (06:49:50):
State's 52 is laboratory item 15.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:49:53):
And that's what you analyzed in case record 11?
Shane Wilcox (06:49:56):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:49:57):
All right. This was a new analysis that you were conducting?
Shane Wilcox (06:50:03):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:50:03):
Meaning you ran a body fluid analysis and then DNA analysis on it?
Shane Wilcox (06:50:08):
That's correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:50:09):
You made cuttings and/or swabbings on this particular piece of evidence?
Shane Wilcox (06:50:13):
Three cuttings.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:50:15):
Permission to publish State's Exhibit 109, specifically case record 11, Your Honor.
Judge (06:50:22):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:50:23):
I'm going to take you then to page 157 of your report. Can you see the television screen?
Shane Wilcox (06:50:39):
I can.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:50:40):
You said at first you did body fluid analysis specifically for what body fluid?
Shane Wilcox (06:50:50):
I performed a screening test for blood.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:50:53):
All right. And your findings were that it did give the chemical indications for the presence of blood?
Shane Wilcox (06:50:58):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:50:59):
And based upon that, is that ... Well, first of all, how did you determine where to perform that test?
Shane Wilcox (06:51:07):
Visually, I'm looking at the item, so the blanket, and I'm looking for areas of red-brown staining. Those areas are then numbered, and those areas are the areas that are tested. And then depending on the results and depending on the size of the stain, the location of the stain, I took cuttings from those stains and ran them through our DNA analysis process.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:51:25):
How many areas of interest did you find on this particular item of evidence?
Shane Wilcox (06:51:33):
I tested five areas and they were all positive.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:51:39):
For the present-
Shane Wilcox (06:51:41):
... For the screening test for blood.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:51:42):
All right. You have a ... Did you do both sides or just one side of it?
Shane Wilcox (06:51:48):
I would've looked at the whole side. I don't know if something was taken from either side.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:51:54):
Okay. I'm going to take you to page 157 of your report. It says page 1 of 4 dealing with the photographs of item number 15. On page 157, it looks as though you have, on the left side picture, this is the side that has some sort of pattern on it. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:52:21):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:52:21):
How many areas of interest did you [inaudible 06:52:26]?
Shane Wilcox (06:52:25):
It appears I only tested area 10.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:52:29):
All right. You blew that area up as a photograph on this page 157?
Shane Wilcox (06:52:36):
Yes. I did.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:52:38):
And what did you do in area 10?
Shane Wilcox (06:52:40):
I took a cutting from that stain and ran it through our DNA process.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:52:44):
All right. I'm going to take you to page 158. You labeled it as two of four for photographs. How many areas of interest did you find on this particular photograph?
Shane Wilcox (06:53:01):
This photograph contains areas 10, 11, and 12 that I tested.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:53:05):
And this is on the pattern side of this particular item of evidence, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:53:11):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:53:13):
And what did you do in relations to either area 10, 11, 12?
Shane Wilcox (06:53:18):
The cutting was taken from area 10 as 15-1. 11 and 12 were not taken forward for DNA.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:53:24):
All right. Take you to then page 159 of your report, which is page 3 of 4 in the photographs of this particular piece of evidence. And it again shows the side with a particular pattern on it. What did you find on this particular-
Shane Wilcox (06:53:46):
I believe that is the backside of the item. This area had area 13 that I tested.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:53:54):
All right. And what did you do with area 13?
Shane Wilcox (06:53:57):
13, I took a cutting as 15- 2 for DNA.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:54:04):
Then I'm going to take you to page 160 of your report, page 4 of 4 of your photographic area of this item of evidence. And what did you note and what did you do?
Shane Wilcox (06:54:20):
I noted area 14 and tested area 14, and due to the positive result with the screening test for blood, I took a cutting for DNA analysis as item 15- 3.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:54:31):
So in total, you have 3 cuttings from this particular item, 15, the blanket?
Shane Wilcox (06:54:36):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:54:37):
15-1, 15-2, 15-3. And all of those areas that you took the cuttings from were positive for the chemical indications for blood?
Shane Wilcox (06:54:52):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:54:52):
All right. And let's start with 15-1. What were your findings, if any?
Shane Wilcox (06:54:58):
The partial DNA profile obtained From the cutting from the blanket is being interpreted as a mixture of two contributors. This mixture contains two interpretable components. The DNA profiles from Paitin Fields and Savannah Fields are included as contributor one to this mixture. The DNA profiles obtained from David Prevatte, Dale Hunt, Jamie Sykes, Haley Fawcett, Melissa Brown, Michael Hall, Jordan Swenson, Larry Huggins are excluded as contributors to the mixture. No conclusion can be rendered as to the DNA profile obtained from Lisa Hunt due to an inconclusive likelihood ratio.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:55:34):
So let me get this right. So you have a mixture of two contributors, correct?
Shane Wilcox (06:55:39):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:55:40):
And I'm reading from your report on page two of your summary. It says the DNA profiles obtained from Paitin Fields and Savannah Fields are included as contributor one to this mixture. Explain that.
Shane Wilcox (06:55:55):
That's correct. So this profile is a partial profile, meaning there is information missing. So when you're dealing with related individuals, like I said earlier, you get half from your mom, half from your dad. Assuming two siblings have the same parents, they're sharing a lot of information. So if there's information missing in a DNA profile and you have two individuals that are sharing a large majority of DNA, it's not uncommon to have them statistically matched to the same component of the DNA profile.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:56:23):
All right. And then what was your statistical analysis for 15-1?
Shane Wilcox (06:56:30):
So for the inclusion of the DNA profile from Paitin Fields, the partial DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the blanket is approximately 625,000 times more likely if it originated from Paitin Fields and an unknown unrelated individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. And then for the comparison for the DNA profile from Savannah Fields, the partial DNA profile is approximately 532 million times more likely if it originated from Savannah Fields and an unknown unrelated individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. And then again, based on this analysis, I attempted to run them together to see if they could have been contributors one and two, and that was not possible.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:57:19):
So on the bottom of that analysis, it said, "Based on this analysis, Paitin Fields and Savannah Fields cannot both be included in the mixture together."
Shane Wilcox (06:57:27):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:57:32):
15-2, what findings, if any, did you have?
Shane Wilcox (06:57:37):
The partial DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the blanket is being interpreted as a mixture of two contributors. The mixture contains two interpretable components. The DNA profiles obtained from Paitin Fields and Savannah Fields are included as contributors one and two of this mixture. The DNA profiles from everyone except for Lisa Hunt, I was able to exclude. Lisa Hunt, I was not able to exclude due to an inconclusive likelihood ratio.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:58:05):
All right. What was your statistical analysis?
Shane Wilcox (06:58:07):
So for this one, the hypothesis was the evidence originated from Paitin Fields and Savannah Fields or the evidence originated from two unknown unrelated individuals and the partial DNA profile is approximately 377 sextillion times more likely if it originated from Paitin Fields and Savannah Fields than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:58:30):
All right, let's go to 15-3.
Shane Wilcox (06:58:34):
The DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the blanket 15-3 is being interpreted as a mixture of two contributors. This mixture contains two interpretable components. The DNA profiles obtained from Paitin Fields and Savannah Fields are included as contributors one and two to the mixture. I was able to exclude all of the other standards in the case from the mixture. And again, this hypothesis one was with Paitin Fields and Savannah Fields versus two unknown unrelated individuals. And the DNA profile was approximately 182 decillion times more likely if it originated from Paitin Fields and Savannah Fields than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:59:20):
Does this conclude your case record 11 analysis?
Shane Wilcox (06:59:23):
It does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:59:25):
May I approach?
Judge (06:59:25):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:59:25):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 113 for identification purposes. Do you recognize 113?
Shane Wilcox (06:59:34):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:59:34):
What is it?
Shane Wilcox (06:59:35):
State's 113 is a laboratory report summary for the case record and this case record.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:59:41):
Case record 11?
Shane Wilcox (06:59:42):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:59:43):
Contains your signature?
Shane Wilcox (06:59:44):
It does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:59:45):
Has it been altered or edited in any way?
Shane Wilcox (06:59:48):
It does not appear to be.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:59:50):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 113.
Judge (06:59:52):
Any objection?
Speaker 12 (06:59:53):
No, sir.
Judge (06:59:54):
State's Exhibit 113 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (06:59:57):
Permission to publish?
Judge (06:59:58):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:00:04):
Mr. Wilcox, is this your State's Exhibit 113, your record level... Strike that, your record worksheet or your case record 11?
Shane Wilcox (07:00:15):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:00:16):
It was released on what date?
Shane Wilcox (07:00:18):
November 30th, 2021.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:00:21):
Three pages, correct? Showing your findings for Item 15?
Shane Wilcox (07:00:26):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:00:34):
Now, you did a final report, correct? In case record 12?
Shane Wilcox (07:00:43):
I did.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:00:45):
And what did you do, if anything, in case record 12?
Shane Wilcox (07:00:49):
A standard for Robert Fields was submitted, so I performed DNA analysis on that standard, and then I compared it to every other interpretable component or profile that was throughout the case that I worked.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:01:01):
All right. So, you just added one more standard, reanalyzed everything against that standard?
Shane Wilcox (07:01:11):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:01:12):
What were your findings, if anything?
Shane Wilcox (07:01:16):
So, for Items four and five, Item six, Item 9-1, Item 9-2 and 11, Item 10-1, I was able to exclude Robert Fields as a contributor either to the profile or the interpretable components of the profiles. For 15-1, I could not render a conclusion because of an inconclusive likelihood ratio result. For Item 15-2, the partial DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the blanket is being interpreted as a mixture of two contributors. The DNA profile obtained from Paitin Fields and Robert Fields are included as contributors one and two respectively to this mixture. I then ran statistics on that inclusion, and the DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the blanket, Item 15-2 is approximately 189 quadrillion times more likely if it originated from Paitin Fields and Robert Fields than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals.
(07:02:27)
The DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the blanket, Item 15-3, is being interpreted as a mixture of two contributors. This mixture contains two interpretable components, the DNA profile obtained from Robert Fields is included as contributor two to this mixture. So, I then ran a statistic to this with the evidence originated from Robert Fields and an unknown, versus two unknowns, and the DNA profile obtained is 145,000 times more likely if it originated from Robert Fields and an unknown versus two unknown, unrelated individuals. For 16-
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:03:10):
Let me stop you there. 15-2, 15-3, you also say that DNA profiles from Savannah Fields and Robert Fields cannot be included in the mixture together. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (07:03:19):
Correct. I apologize, that's also the same reason. Father of a child shares, again, most likely half of their DNA. So, with a DNA profile with limited information, this happens.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:03:30):
All right. So, 16-1... I'm going to lead you a little bit. 16-1, 16-2, he was excluded, Robert Fields was excluded from 16-1, 16-2?
Shane Wilcox (07:03:42):
Correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:03:45):
Item 18, the swabbing from the Christmas lights, what was your findings there with regards to Robert Fields?
Shane Wilcox (07:03:53):
Inconclusive likelihood ratio results, so I cannot make an inclusion or exclusion.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:03:58):
Okay. 19?
Shane Wilcox (07:04:01):
Excluded.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:04:03):
20-1?
Shane Wilcox (07:04:05):
I was able to include as contributor two of the mixture.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:04:11):
But again, you say in there the DNA profiles obtained from Paitin Fields and Robert Fields cannot be both included in the interpretable component of the mixture together. Is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (07:04:24):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:04:26):
And 20-2?
Shane Wilcox (07:04:27):
Oh, I'm sorry, 20-1, Savannah Fields and Robert Fields are included as contributors one and two respectively.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:04:34):
And Paitin Fields and Robert Fields cannot be both included in the interpretable component, that's at the end of your analysis of that?
Shane Wilcox (07:04:40):
Savannah Fields and Paitin Fields.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:04:42):
All right.
Shane Wilcox (07:04:43):
Oh, I am sorry, yes, you are correct.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:04:47):
Paitin Fields and Robert Fields cannot be there. Robert Fields is Paitin and Savannah's father?
Shane Wilcox (07:04:51):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:04:51):
20-2, 20-3, 28, 29, 30- 1, 32, 34-1, 34-2, 34-3, 34-4, and 39, Robert's excluded from all of this.
Shane Wilcox (07:05:15):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:05:16):
Does that conclude your analysis regarding case record 12?
Shane Wilcox (07:05:21):
It does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:05:21):
May I approach?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:05:23):
You may.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:05:24):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 114 for identification purposes. Do you recognize 114?
Shane Wilcox (07:05:41):
I do.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:05:41):
Is that your case record 12?
Shane Wilcox (07:05:44):
It is.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:05:45):
And does it contain your signature?
Shane Wilcox (07:05:48):
It does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:05:49):
And has it been altered in any way or edited in any way?
Shane Wilcox (07:05:53):
It does not appear to be.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:05:54):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 114.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:05:56):
Any objection?
Lawyer 2 (07:05:57):
No, sir.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:05:58):
Permission-
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:05:59):
State's Exhibit 114 will be admitted into evidence.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:06:02):
Permission to publish, Judge?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:06:03):
You may publish.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:06:06):
114, State's Exhibit 114 is your last case record for this case, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (07:06:14):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:06:15):
And that's case record 12. When was the release date?
Shane Wilcox (07:06:18):
May 31st, 2022.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:06:21):
And it is six pages long, containing your findings with regards to Robert Fields against all the evidence that you analyzed?
Shane Wilcox (07:06:34):
Yes.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:06:34):
And contains your signature at the end?
Shane Wilcox (07:06:36):
It does.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:06:52):
Thank you. Just a minute, Your Honor. Just real quick, in regards to DNA and DNA sources and DNA analysis, what is masking, if you know?
Shane Wilcox (07:07:16):
I believe you're referring to if individuals share the same peak. So, when that graph is generated, you'll see one peak, but that doesn't mean that that peak belongs to only one individual, which is why we look at multiple areas. You would hope that multiple people do not share the same peak at every area. Twins would do that. So, if you were to run two profiles from identical twins, they would have the same profile. However, that is a profile made of two individuals. So, masking is other individual's peaks being hidden within another peak in the profile.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:07:52):
No further questions, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:07:54):
Members of the jury, just for your information, because we are taking tomorrow off, we will finish today with the conclusion of this witness's testimony. So, if we go past 5:00, I just wanted to make sure that you were all aware. Cross examination?
Lawyer 2 (07:08:09):
Yes, sir. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Wilcox, good afternoon.
Shane Wilcox (07:08:11):
Good afternoon.
Lawyer 2 (07:08:13):
Why was it necessary to obtain the DNA profile of Robert Fields?
Shane Wilcox (07:08:19):
I was asked to compare that profile, I do not know the reason why it was submitted. When we receive a standard in a case, we just compare it to everything that we previously worked.
Lawyer 2 (07:08:31):
And Paitin Fields' DNA, one half came from her mother, one half came from her father?
Shane Wilcox (07:08:39):
Correct.
Lawyer 2 (07:08:42):
I'm going to kind of go in reverse order of where we were. The pink blanket, David Prevatte was excluded as a contributor to the DNA testing unit on the blanket, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (07:09:26):
I'm going to have to find it, I'm sorry.
Lawyer 2 (07:09:35):
[inaudible 07:09:26]. That would be 15-1.
Shane Wilcox (07:09:35):
For Item 15-1, the DNA profile from David Prevatte was excluded as a contributor.
Lawyer 2 (07:09:35):
From lab report, case report number nine, the Dickie pants, did you ever receive information... Wait a minute. Two contributors in that were David Prevatte and David Fields, on the zipper and the thigh areas, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (07:10:18):
The thigh area swab?
Lawyer 2 (07:10:20):
Yes.
Shane Wilcox (07:10:21):
I'm sorry, that's from a different case record.
Lawyer 2 (07:10:22):
[inaudible 07:10:22] case number 14, I apologize.
Shane Wilcox (07:10:26):
The DNA profile from the swab from the exterior thigh of the pants, I was able to include the DNA profiles from David Prevatte and Paitin Fields to that profile.
Lawyer 2 (07:11:04):
Were you ever shared any information that Paitin Fields urinated and defecated on David en route to the hospital?
Shane Wilcox (07:11:11):
I was told that information at some point, yes.
Lawyer 2 (07:11:17):
And lab report, lab case report nine, again, that was the Dickie pants, specifically the waistband, the interior waistband and zip.
Shane Wilcox (07:11:39):
34-1 was the waistband of the pants.
Lawyer 2 (07:11:40):
And from the interior waistband as shown in the photograph, do you know where the location was that contained the DNA or did you swab the entire thing?
Shane Wilcox (07:11:59):
All I can say is that entire surface was swabbed as one area. So, the DNA was from that area. I can't narrow it down to front, back, side or either side.
Lawyer 2 (07:12:07):
You can't pinpoint it.
Shane Wilcox (07:12:07):
Correct.
Lawyer 2 (07:12:59):
The child's blue pants... I believe that was not part of case report number nine, was it?
Shane Wilcox (07:13:20):
I do not believe so... It was case record nine.
Lawyer 2 (07:13:53):
And the blue pants, you swab area around the button?
Shane Wilcox (07:14:01):
Yes, 8-2.
Lawyer 2 (07:14:05):
And were you able to identify any DNA profile there?
Shane Wilcox (07:14:10):
There was insufficient DNA there.
Lawyer 2 (07:14:14):
The belt that was the subject, the swabbing and the subject of the impact filter, the DNA profiles were developed from there were for David and for Haley Fawcett, is that correct?
Shane Wilcox (07:14:29):
Do you know what item number it is?
Lawyer 2 (07:14:32):
Yes, sir. Let me... Belt was Item 32.
Shane Wilcox (07:15:02):
So, for Item 32, I was able to include Haley Fawcett as well as David Prevatte.
Lawyer 2 (07:15:09):
And Paitin Fields was excluded?
Shane Wilcox (07:15:14):
Correct.
Lawyer 2 (07:15:18):
The red earbuds, Item... Let me find them. Do you recall which portions had already been swabbed?
Shane Wilcox (07:16:10):
I did not take the swabbing, so I'm not sure where it was swabbed.
Lawyer 2 (07:16:15):
Okay. And there was a mixture that included both David and Paitin?
Shane Wilcox (07:16:48):
That was Item 10-1, the swabbing from the red earbuds, I was able to include the DNA profiles from David Prevatte and Paitin Fields.
Lawyer 2 (07:17:00):
Was the source of the DNA profiles, was it blood, was it saliva, or were they epithelial cells?
Shane Wilcox (07:17:11):
I do not believe there was any body fluid testing, I did not perform any body fluid personally, so I cannot say.
Lawyer 2 (07:17:23):
And do you recall which area you tested? Was it the wire? Was it the wire and the earbuds themselves?
Shane Wilcox (07:17:32):
I did not take the swabbing. From what I heard this morning, I believe the analyst said that they swabbed the wire, but I did not personally swab the item.
Lawyer 2 (07:17:40):
Out of all of the items that you tested for DNA, very few had included David and Paitin as contributors together.
Shane Wilcox (07:18:24):
I believe that is a reasonable statement, yes.
Lawyer 2 (07:18:28):
And there were items that were tested that included David but not Paitin?
Shane Wilcox (07:18:38):
Yes.
Lawyer 2 (07:18:39):
And likewise, they may have included Paitin, but not David?
Shane Wilcox (07:18:45):
I believe that is correct.
Lawyer 2 (07:18:55):
Thank you, Your Honor, I don't have any other questions.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:18:57):
Any redirect?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:18:57):
No, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:18:59):
Is this witness subject to recall?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:19:00):
[inaudible 07:19:03].
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:19:02):
On behalf of the defense?
Lawyer 2 (07:19:03):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:19:04):
All right, sir, you are released from your obligation to your subpoena. You may step down, you're free to go.
Speaker 13 (07:19:14):
Yes, sir, watch you step.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:19:24):
Any other witnesses for this evening, Mr. Smith?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:19:26):
No, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:19:29):
All right, members of the jury, we will break for the day. Like I mentioned, we will not be having court tomorrow, so we will be reconvening Monday morning at 9:30. Please remember, as we have this extended weekend, not to talk amongst yourselves about this case, do not discuss this case with anybody else, including friends, family members, or coworkers. Do not allow anybody else to discuss this case in your presence. Do not conduct any independent investigation or inquiry, including going online on any social media sites or any media sites to learn more about this case, or if you have to pass by any of the places that have been mentioned, you may pass by, but you're not allowed to stop and conduct any independent inquiry.
(07:20:15)
You're not allowed to have any contact with any of the parties, attorneys, or witnesses. You are not allowed to post online on any social media sites regarding your experience or any of the evidence you've seen or heard. So, at this time, you are excused. Please take off your badges, clip them to your own notebooks until Monday morning at 9:30.
Speaker 13 (07:20:35):
Thank you, Your Honor. Make sure your notebooks are closed, please. [inaudible 07:20:40] those along with your red badges in your chair. [inaudible 07:20:46] and back, please, this way.
(07:20:45)
[inaudible 07:21:09]. Jury has left the courtroom.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:21:20):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has exited the courtroom. As far as the witness that's coming in from out of state, is she going to be the first one that you have, or the Charlotte witness?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:21:36):
I believe the Charlotte will be the first one, Judge. The flight for the out of state doesn't get into Wilmington until 11:30, Judge. That was about the earliest direct flight that we could give you. There was a layover, but it came in at the same time, so we...
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:21:52):
Do we have other witnesses that would be able to fill that time as well, given landing, travel up from Wilmington up to Burgaw?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:21:59):
Probably not, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:22:00):
So, just the Charlotte witness in the morning and then waiting for the other analysts to arrive?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:22:05):
Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:22:06):
As far as other witnesses that you plan on calling, do you have other witnesses then that you plan on calling?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:22:14):
One more after the analyst, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:22:17):
The out-of-state analyst?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:22:19):
Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:22:20):
Okay. And that would be your concluding witness then?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:22:22):
Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:22:22):
Okay. Anticipating that those witnesses are concluding Monday?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:22:31):
Maybe Tuesday.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:22:31):
Okay.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:22:31):
Depends on how long.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:22:34):
I assume you're detective then.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:22:35):
Yes.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:22:36):
Okay.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:22:37):
Could be Monday, Tuesday. Tuesday at the latest. Tuesday at the latest, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:22:44):
Okay. All right. Anything else we need to discuss?
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:22:50):
No.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:22:50):
Mr. Britt, anything we need to discuss?
Lawyer 2 (07:22:52):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:22:53):
Okay. We'll be in recess until Monday morning at 9:30.
Attorney Jason W. Smith (07:22:56):
[inaudible 07:23:00].
